On Apr 09, 2011, at 06:23 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
Glad to read my review helped :)
Indeed, thanks.
I also think that “bundle” is a nice term to name what the docs currently calls a distribution.
At the very least, *bundle* isn't completely overloaded 10x over in Pythonland yet. :)
Another example of version information is the sqlite3 [5]_ library the sqlite3 module
You overlooked that one.
Got it.
#. For modules which are also packages, the top level module >>> namespace SHOULD include the ``__version__`` attribute. Just a remark: I don’t remember ever reading the term “top-level >> module namespace”. It’s not hard to understand, but it might be helpful to some readers if you add “(i.e. the :file:`{somepackage}/__init__.py` file)”. (The brackets will cause the enclosed text to be marked up >> as replaceable text, just a nicety.) How about just removing "top-level"?
#. For modules which are also packages, the module namespace > SHOULD include the ``__version__`` attribute.
I’m still not sure “module namespace” will be clear to everyone.
Really? We know what a module is, and we know what a namespace is, so given the context, I think it should be clear.
Tarek already ruled last summer that field names in setup.cfg have to have their PEP 345 name. I proposed to merge author name and email into the author field, and to have the description field always refer to a file: author and author_email are still separate, and a new description_from_file fields has been added. That’s why I think a new field has to be defined. version-from should be a short enough name. I also expect most people to use copy-paste or the interactive setup.cfg creation helper, so field name length should not be that big of an issue.
Perhaps. In lieu of a better idea it's fine for now. -Barry