Re: [Distutils] New draft of PEP 426

2013-02-04 Thread Nick Coghlan
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Donald Stufft donald.stu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, February 3, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Keywords (optional) --- A list of additional whitespace separated keywords to be used to assist searching for the distribution in a

Re: [Distutils] New draft of PEP 426

2013-02-04 Thread Donald Stufft
On Monday, February 4, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Keywords are supposed to be short, and the field name is Keywords rather than Keyword, so I don't think it's worth the hassle of changing it. I at least clarified it to be explicitly whitespace-separated in this version (that was

[Distutils] PEP 426, round 733 ;)

2013-02-04 Thread Nick Coghlan
(I think we're getting pretty close now...) As usual, PEP inline below and on the web at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0426/ Diff from the previous version is here (the abstract is fixed in the next commit): http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/7f36cb23fb6d From the commit message: - include an

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426, round 733 ;)

2013-02-04 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: As usual, PEP inline below and on the web at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0426/ Version scheme == Version numbers must comply with the following scheme:: N.N[.N]+[{a|b|c|rc}N][.postN][.devN]

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426, round 733 ;)

2013-02-04 Thread Daniel Holth
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Philippe Ombredanne pombreda...@nexb.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: As usual, PEP inline below and on the web at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0426/ Version scheme == Version numbers

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426, round 733 ;)

2013-02-04 Thread a.cavallo
I agree *completely* with Philippe here. If a version standard will be enforced what's the point of making it more complicated that a sequential number or something along x.y.z? In the end that's what the version number is. On Mon 04/02/13 16:31, Philippe Ombredanne pombreda...@nexb.com

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426, round 733 ;)

2013-02-04 Thread Ronald Oussoren
On 4 Feb, 2013, at 17:00, a.cava...@cavallinux.eu wrote: I agree *completely* with Philippe here. If a version standard will be enforced what's the point of making it more complicated that a sequential number or something along x.y.z? In the end that's what the version number is.

Re: [Distutils] New draft of PEP 426

2013-02-04 Thread Vinay Sajip
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes: With Donald Stufft's assistance, I've created a new draft of PEP 426. For the moment I'm listed as a co-author and no longer as BDFL-Delegate - there's a separate discussion on python-dev about that. I think it's worth inserting in the Example

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426, round 733 ;)

2013-02-04 Thread Antonio Cavallo
Because the version number is just more complicated? The details have been ... Nope, the whole point is it shouldn't. If that has to be enforced why adding marketing alert to it? Why choosing something complex over something simple? In the correct world (mine where unicorns live freely) I

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426, round 733 ;)

2013-02-04 Thread Vinay Sajip
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes: (I think we're getting pretty close now...) I've implemented parsing - tuple for versions as specified in the PEP, to test parsing and sorting: https://gist.github.com/4709696 Please let me know if you spot anything wrong with the code. Regards,

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426, round 733 ;)

2013-02-04 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 5 Feb 2013 02:01, a.cava...@cavallinux.eu wrote: I agree *completely* with Philippe here. If a version standard will be enforced what's the point of making it more complicated that a sequential number or something along x.y.z? In the end that's what the version number is. Because to get