On 11/18/2014 08:24 PM, Matej Stuchlik wrote: > I think this is more of a problem with unclear macro names. As we currently > use them (e.g. [0]) and as they were intended [1], both python2_version and > python2_version_nodots are supposed to contain major and minor version numbers > only, which they do and as far as I can see will continue to do so even if > micro > 9.
Oops, I failed to account for the fact that the "." was one of the 3 characters being read :) > It's true that they would stop working if the minor version ever got to > 9 > however, My current assumption is we'll go 3.9 -> 4.0, even though there won't be a 3.0 style compatibility break for 4.0. Recommended practices for new Python development will have changed enough by that point that the version bump will appropriately recognise the 15 years or so since the original 3.0 release. > so I'll change the definition as you advise, using version_info, just without > the leading > zero. :) Sounds good. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan Red Hat Hosted & Shared Services Software Engineering & Development, Brisbane HSS Provisioning Architect _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
