Re: [Distutils] RFC : Version comparison
At 08:58 PM 5/6/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Sorry to post again that mail, but it seems that this is the last remaining issue for the versionning proposal.
Phillip, could you check my proposal for your development versions of postreleases use case ?
Is the code up-to-date with the below?
thx
2009/4/22 P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com>:
I don't see how it can manage, e.g. a development version of a
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote: postrelease,
with an SVN rev or date stamp on it. Such versions might not be found on PyPI or on RPMs, but would be needed in development.
So, instead of having 'dev' and 'post', we would require a third case for "pos+dev" version
so (dev|post)N+ could become, ((dev|post)N+)|(postN+devN+)
example:
1.0.dev459 < 1.0 < 1.0.post456dev463 < 1.0.post456 < 1.0.post489
(Btw, the wiki page pseudo-regex doesn't match what the code actually parses, either.)
i'll check it thx
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:20 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
At 08:58 PM 5/6/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Sorry to post again that mail, but it seems that this is the last remaining issue for the versionning proposal.
Phillip, could you check my proposal for your development versions of postreleases use case ?
Is the code up-to-date with the below?
No, I'll do a branch then with that version
thx
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/22 P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com>:
I don't see how it can manage, e.g. a development version of a postrelease, with an SVN rev or date stamp on it. Such versions might not be found on PyPI or on RPMs, but would be needed in development.
So, instead of having 'dev' and 'post', we would require a third case for "pos+dev" version
so (dev|post)N+ could become, ((dev|post)N+)|(postN+devN+)
example:
1.0.dev459 < 1.0 < 1.0.post456dev463 < 1.0.post456 < 1.0.post489
(Btw, the wiki page pseudo-regex doesn't match what the code actually parses, either.)
i'll check it thx
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:20 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
At 08:58 PM 5/6/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Sorry to post again that mail, but it seems that this is the last remaining issue for the versionning proposal.
Phillip, could you check my proposal for your development versions of postreleases use case ?
Is the code up-to-date with the below?
No, I'll do a branch then with that version
done (I have also fixed minor bugs in that branch http://bitbucket.org/tarek/distutilsversion/src/3fe1afab2e1a/ Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
Any feedback on this "dev version of post release" use case or I move forward and integrate it ? On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:20 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
At 08:58 PM 5/6/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Sorry to post again that mail, but it seems that this is the last remaining issue for the versionning proposal.
Phillip, could you check my proposal for your development versions of postreleases use case ?
Is the code up-to-date with the below?
No, I'll do a branch then with that version
done (I have also fixed minor bugs in that branch
http://bitbucket.org/tarek/distutilsversion/src/3fe1afab2e1a/
Tarek
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
participants (2)
-
P.J. Eby
-
Tarek Ziadé