On 7/25/06, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1.0.2881 - This would sort after 1.0 (and 1.0b and 1.0c) and before 1.1
> for most tools out there.
I like that best. Save the 1.1 prefix until it's actually released as such.
The numbering scheme needs to deal with what to call the patch tip
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 04:03:13PM -0700, Andrew Straw wrote:
> Sasha wrote:
>
> >On 7/24/06, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>BTW, Fernando, all this is so that we can still have the svn revision
> >>number in __version__, but so that it doesn't screw up sorting.
> >
> >Sorting __v
On 7/24/06, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I only brought up version numbers as strings because you did. I'm
> not proposing we solve that problem. I see setuptools, in particular, as
> the biggest thing to support, because it lets you have multiple versions
> installed simultaneou
Sasha wrote:
>On 7/24/06, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>BTW, Fernando, all this is so that we can still have the svn revision
>>number in __version__, but so that it doesn't screw up sorting.
>>
>>
>
>Sorting __version__ is screwed up regardless of svn revision number:
>
>
Sasha wrote:
>On 7/24/06, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>>The concern is that there are a bazillion ways of sorting version
>>numbers but the version numbers from numpy's current svn tree don't sort
>>with (m)any of them. Sorting strings in Python is one way, using
>>setupt
On 7/24/06, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, Fernando, all this is so that we can still have the svn revision
> number in __version__, but so that it doesn't screw up sorting.
Sorting __version__ is screwed up regardless of svn revision number:
>>> '1.9' < '1.10'
False
---
On 7/24/06, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> The concern is that there are a bazillion ways of sorting version
> numbers but the version numbers from numpy's current svn tree don't sort
> with (m)any of them. Sorting strings in Python is one way, using
> setuptools or debian's dpkg
Sasha wrote:
>On 7/24/06, Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew Straw has emphasized that the current strategy of appending the
>>SVN version number to development versions of the SVN tree makes it hard
>>to do version sorting.
>>
>>
>
>I am not sure what the problem is, bu
On 7/24/06, Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Straw has emphasized that the current strategy of appending the
> SVN version number to development versions of the SVN tree makes it hard
> to do version sorting.
I am not sure what the problem is, but if the concern is that
>>> '0.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:06:57 -0600
Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Straw has emphasized that the current strategy of appending the
> SVN version number to development versions of the SVN tree makes it hard
> to do version sorting.
>
> His proposal is to not change the versio
On 7/24/06, Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Straw has emphasized that the current strategy of appending the
> SVN version number to development versions of the SVN tree makes it hard
> to do version sorting.
>
> His proposal is to not change the version number until the first be
Andrew Straw has emphasized that the current strategy of appending the
SVN version number to development versions of the SVN tree makes it hard
to do version sorting.
His proposal is to not change the version number until the first beta
comes out.
In other words, the trunk should not be 1.1 b
12 matches
Mail list logo
