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
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
(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
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]
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
11 matches
Mail list logo