Hi folks, The recent release of setuptools 8.0 brought with it the migration to the more explicit version handling semantics defined in PEP 440.
Some of the feedback on that release showed us that we could really use the equivalent of PEP 411 for interoperability PEPs as well as for standard library modules: a way to say "this is well defined enough for us to publish a reference implementation in the default packaging tools, but needs additional user feedback before we consider it completely stable". The reasons for this are mostly pragmatic: the kinds of tweaks we're talking about are small (in this specific case, changing the normalised form when publishing release candidates from 'c' to 'rc' , when installation tools are already required to accept either spelling as valid), but updating hyperlinks, other documentation references, etc means that spinning a full PEP revision just for that change would be excessively expensive in contributor time and energy. So over on distutils-sig, we're currently considering PEP 440 provisional until we're happy with the feedback we're receiving on setuptools 8.x and the upcoming pip 6.0 release. However, I'd be happier if we could communicate that status more explicitly through the PEP process, especially as I think such a capability would be useful more generally as we move towards implementing metadata 2.0 and potentially other enhancements for pip 7+ next year. If folks are OK with this idea, I'll go ahead and make the appropriate changes to PEP 1 and the PEP index generator. I'm also happy to file a tracker issue, or write a short PEP, if folks feel making such a change requires a little more formality in its own right. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com