On 28 June 2013 00:15, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> It occurs to me, though, given that we now have an exact prefix
>> matching notation for more unusual forward compatibility constraints,
>> we *could* just make all compatible release clauses expli
On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> It occurs to me, though, given that we now have an exact prefix
> matching notation for more unusual forward compatibility constraints,
> we *could* just make all compatible release clauses explicitly
> semantic versioning based. Then you could s
FYI semver 2.0.0 final was released :-) semver.org
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 27 June 2013 19:16, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>> All the examples of explicit prefix matching in PEP 440 show only release
>> clause components, but it's not explicitly stated whether that's
>>
On 27 June 2013 19:16, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> All the examples of explicit prefix matching in PEP 440 show only release
> clause components, but it's not explicitly stated whether that's
> specifically intended. For example, are prefix matching clauses such as
>
> == 1.2.dev0.*
> != 1.2.post1.*
>
>
All the examples of explicit prefix matching in PEP 440 show only release
clause components, but it's not explicitly stated whether that's
specifically intended. For example, are prefix matching clauses such as
== 1.2.dev0.*
!= 1.2.post1.*
allowed?
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
