Is there an official stable release of setuptools?
Hello, Is there a blessed-as-stable, official, release of setuptools? Perhaps it's just me but a version number of the form '0.6c6' or '0.7a1' just doesn't seem like the developers think it is stable yet, even if it is being widely used. :-) The reason I'm asking is that there is some debate going on at Enthought about whether we should make available an egg of setuptools in our 'stable' egg repository. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't be publishing binaries of sources and calling them 'stable' unless the developers of that source have said 'this version is stable' in some form. Said with a bit more detail, I think for us to call something stable, we need to start with stable source and then do testing to verify that our builds are being done correctly. So, I'd want someone to say publicly that 0.6c6 (or whatever version) is a stable release of the source before we say our build of that should go in our stable repository. However, there are others who think 'stable' just means that we've found, in our own testing, that things generally work as advertised and that really, our build process is building correctly. (I may be paraphrasing incorrectly, but since other Enthought-ers read this list, I'll trust them to correct me!) This would mean that we could put a binary of setuptools 0.7a1 up in our stable repo. Any thoughts? -- Dave
At 03:44 PM 7/18/2007 -0500, Dave Peterson wrote:
Hello,
Is there a blessed-as-stable, official, release of setuptools? Perhaps it's just me but a version number of the form '0.6c6' or '0.7a1' just doesn't seem like the developers think it is stable yet, even if it is being widely used. :-)
It depends on your definition of "stable", of course. :) There will be an 0.6c7, fixing a couple of outstanding issues. I will then at some point simply bless an 0.6 final, regardless of whether there are any more bugs found, because having an 0.6c8 is just ridiculous. ;-) 0.6c6 is nonetheless an official *release* of setuptools. We do not have a "stable/unstable" distinction, only a "release/development" distinction. 0.7a1 has not been released, but 0.6c6 has. Releases are uploaded to the CheeseShop, and do not have 'dev-r####' tags in their version.
However, there are others who think 'stable' just means that we've found, in our own testing, that things generally work as advertised and that really, our build process is building correctly. (I may be paraphrasing incorrectly, but since other Enthought-ers read this list, I'll trust them to correct me!) This would mean that we could put a binary of setuptools 0.7a1 up in our stable repo.
Since 0.7a1 does not exist yet (only unreleased 0.7a1dev-r#### versions), you won't be able to do that just yet. :)
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 03:44 PM 7/18/2007 -0500, Dave Peterson wrote:
Hello,
Is there a blessed-as-stable, official, release of setuptools? Perhaps it's just me but a version number of the form '0.6c6' or '0.7a1' just doesn't seem like the developers think it is stable yet, even if it is being widely used. :-)
It depends on your definition of "stable", of course. :) There will be an 0.6c7, fixing a couple of outstanding issues. I will then at some point simply bless an 0.6 final, regardless of whether there are any more bugs found, because having an 0.6c8 is just ridiculous. ;-)
We're in the same boat with some of our components. ;-)
0.6c6 is nonetheless an official *release* of setuptools. We do not have a "stable/unstable" distinction, only a "release/development" distinction.
Okay. That's good enough for me. Sounds like we can effectively think of any non-dev release of setuptools as what I was terming a 'stable' release. Perhaps in general we should stop using the term 'stable' and change it to 'released'? I'll use that in the rest of this e-mail.
0.7a1 has not been released, but 0.6c6 has. Releases are uploaded to the CheeseShop, and do not have 'dev-r####' tags in their version.
However, there are others who think 'stable' just means that we've found, in our own testing, that things generally work as advertised and that really, our build process is building correctly. (I may be paraphrasing incorrectly, but since other Enthought-ers read this list, I'll trust them to correct me!) This would mean that we could put a binary of setuptools 0.7a1 up in our stable repo.
Since 0.7a1 does not exist yet (only unreleased 0.7a1dev-r#### versions), you won't be able to do that just yet. :)
Yeah, here is where it gets tricky. Apparently some of us got overzealous (my term, not theirs) and modified code in *our* component source (that we now want to 'release') such that it depends on the API in 0.7a1dev-r####. We are currently building dev builds of your dev source such that they have a version specified like '0.7a1dev-r####.devYYYYMMDDHHMM' which, beyond being quite a mouthful, distinguishes any of our numerous attempts at building your dev source from one another. They each get tagged with the date of the build since they may be built against the same svn revision. (Not such a big deal with setuptools, but the principal is meant for other components where getting the build right may take several attempts over days or weeks.) Anyway, when we want to 'release' our component, we want a corresponding release of the dependency -- but you're not there yet -- so we're talking about putting out a version called '0.7a1dev-r####' in our 'releases' dir. This seems to be the only solution given where we are (besides backing out the implementation that relies on the 0.7a1 features.) Since people can already get an install of 0.7a1dev-r#### this probably isn't the end of the world, but we are now calling it a release when you're not -- which bothers me. :-) I've never had to think like a 'packager' before trying to set this up. (Thanks for that term by the way Rob!) Perhaps its time for more googling of how they do it. Thanks for your responses! -- Dave
participants (2)
-
Dave Peterson -
Phillip J. Eby