Re: [Distutils] Common version-comparison semantics for peace love and harmony
At 09:41 AM 11/28/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
That's completely wrong, the proposal is a benefit for all of us, because it standardizes something that is already being done.
You seem to have misunderstood me; I'm objecting to Ben Finney's "simple alphanumeric sort", not to PEP 386 in general.
PEP 386 propose a scheme to be adopted by developers or tools, but if some people want to stick with their own internal version scheme for development versions or post/pre release versions, they can do it without any problem. And they don't have to follow any PEP 386 convention for their internal work.
This is not actually true, since developers working in a team situation can be sharing and building binary releases of these packages.
So you have two choices: - an implicit, heuristic ordering (that's what is happening today) - a explicit, documented ordering. that's the goal of PEP 386.
Setuptools' version scheme *is* explicit and documented -- as you should know, since I pointed you to those docs when you were writing PEP 386.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
At 09:41 AM 11/28/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
That's completely wrong, the proposal is a benefit for all of us, because it standardizes something that is already being done.
You seem to have misunderstood me; I'm objecting to Ben Finney's "simple alphanumeric sort", not to PEP 386 in general.
Ok,
PEP 386 propose a scheme to be adopted by developers or tools, but if some people want to stick with their own internal version scheme for development versions or post/pre release versions, they can do it without any problem. And they don't have to follow any PEP 386 convention for their internal work.
This is not actually true, since developers working in a team situation can be sharing and building binary releases of these packages.
As long as they are using and sharing their own tool that respect their specific version scheme, where they have a classical scheme for final releases, and a specific scheme for development releases, how would that be a problem if they don't publish at PyPI or to others those specific versions ?
So you have two choices: - an implicit, heuristic ordering (that's what is happening today) - a explicit, documented ordering. that's the goal of PEP 386.
Setuptools' version scheme *is* explicit and documented -- as you should know, since I pointed you to those docs when you were writing PEP 386.
Sorry I was unclear. Implicit was the wrong word. What I wanted to say is that setuptools will order any version string a project provides without complaining, IOW, 'Foo' and 'Bar' are valid version numbers with it. So you have two choices: - an loose version scheme, where any string can be a version and will be compared (that's what is happening today) - a stricter version scheme, based on a segmented ordering. that's the goal of PEP 386. Tarek
participants (2)
-
P.J. Eby -
Tarek Ziadé