On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> On 05/09/2016 05:19 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>
>> On 05/07/2016 09:32 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>>> I also checked pytoml at https://github.com/avakar/pytoml and it looks
>>> like it's pretty stable; no changes in the past 5 months except to
>>> support Python 3.5 and only 3 issues. And the format is simple enough
>>> that if someone had to fork the code like Nathaniel suggested or we did
>>> it from scratch it wouldn't be a huge burden.
>
>
> After further consideration, and pytoml's author's comment about the spec
> changing without a version increase, I think we might be better off rolling
> our own.

He's a bit confused -- they didn't change 0.4.0; they made changes in their dev branch working towards 1.0.0 (some cleanups related to the date/time stuff I think?"). But of course when you go to github it shows you the current dev version, and the dev version has a prominent link at the top to the 0.4.0 tag, so if you're skimming it's easy to misread it as saying that what you're looking at is 0.4.0.

-n

--
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org