Re: [Distutils] PEP386 Pre releases
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") True
Also there is a bug in that version of verlib because it contradicts pep386 here:
V("0.2rc1") < V("0.2") False
# setuptools ¿?
from pkg_resources import parse_version as V V("0.2.dev0") < V("0.2a1") < V("0.2") True
# distutils
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".
On 9/13/12 3:21 AM, SAn wrote:
On Wed Sep 12 19:47:39 CEST 2012, Donald Stufft 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
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Erik Bray wrote: person do it right. Hi, just yesterday i got bitten by this issue. FYI:
# verlib "pep386" (from https://bitbucket.org/tarek/distutilsversion) you should use the one at http://hg.python.org/distutils2/file/0291648eb2b2/distutils2/version.py
for all your tests, and file bugs at bugs.python.org verlib is an old version and is properly a bit different Cheers Tarek
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Tarek Ziadé
On 9/13/12 3:21 AM, SAn wrote:
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)
you should use the one at http://hg.python.org/distutils2/file/0291648eb2b2/distutils2/version.py
for all your tests, and file bugs at bugs.python.org
verlib is an old version and is properly a bit different
Thanks Tarek. The code at distutils2 doesn't have that bug :) Cheers, SAn
participants (2)
-
SAn
-
Tarek Ziadé