On Wed Sep 12 19:47:39 CEST 2012, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Erik Bray wrote:
That said, this doesn't match my workflow at all. After releasing "1.0" the next version is going to be "1.1", and any development pre-release will be "1.1.devX". "1.1a" might not ever even exist. I think others brought up this critique at the time PEP 386 was being discussed, but then nothing was ever done about it >_>
Yea, this concerned me because 1.1.devX < 1.1a1 < 1.1b1 < 1.1c1 < 1.1 is how i've seen it used in the wild. Looks like most everyone i've seen using it so far has been doing it wrong. Don't think ive seen a single person do it right.
Hi, just yesterday i got bitten by this issue. FYI:
# verlib "pep386" (from https://bitbucket.org/tarek/distutilsversion)
from verlib import NormalizedVersion as V V("0.2a1") < V("0.2.dev0") < V("0.2")
Also there is a bug in that version of verlib because it contradicts pep386 here:
V("0.2rc1") < V("0.2")
# setuptools ¿?
from pkg_resources import parse_version as V V("0.2.dev0") < V("0.2a1") < V("0.2")
distutils.version.LooseVersion("0.2.dev0") < distutils.version.LooseVersion("0.2")
False # O_O
cheers, SAn PD: i wasn't subcribed to the list, sorry if this mail breaks the "thread".