On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Ian Bicking <ianb@colorstudy.com> wrote:
> So after creating, say, version 0.3.1, I always mark a package as 0.3.2dev.
> But this is annoying, you might never create a version 0.3.2 (e.g., 0.4
> might be the next level).
> So, it would be better to use something like 0.3.1~dev. What is considered
> best practice for this? Ideally something that works with both Setuptools
> and the upcoming Distribute version spec.

I like using a version of "0" on my project trunks. I set the release
version on release tags.
I really wish there was a special version (or a version pattern) that
indicated that something is a development version *only* and can't be
released. I don't think best practices have been established.

It would be nice if there was a sense of branches. E.g., if I fork a project, say setuptools-0.6c3, I could make setuptools-ianb-0.6c3 and someone could install, say, setuptools==ianb, getting whatever was the newest version of my branch. But ianb-0.6c3 wouldn't be comparable to any other version except versions on that branch. Though once installed it would satisfy a generic "setuptools" requirement. This could be used for a dev branch as well, which would satisfy a requirement but not be considered part of the same version series as the stable releases.