[Distutils] PEP 386 status - last round here ?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:55:53PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> > Last, as I said in a previous mail, I tend to agree with the people
> > who said that we should stick with only one way to write the version
> > scheme for the sake of clarity. e.g. dropping aliases and picking
> > *one* way to write the markers after major.minor.micro.
> > 
> > I would tend to pick the same scheme than Python for the pre-releases
> > (and c + rc):
> > 
> >     N.N[.N][(a|b|c|rc)N]
> > 
> > And, for the post/dev markers I think dots are OK for readability,
> 
> Sure, but readability and clarity means different things for
> different people.
> 
> The reason I proposed aliases and underscores is to give package
> authors the choice of using terse forms or more verbose ones, as
> well as making the whole scheme more compatible to existing
> version strings already in use.
> 
I'm not a big fan of underscores -- having multiple separators doesn't seem
very useful.

I don'tlike aliases but seeing as I like the long forms, having both short
and long but giving them a distinct ordering would be okay to me (ie:

a1 < alpha1 < a2 < b1 < beta1 < c1 < rc1


> Regarding post/dev markers:
> 
> IMO, it's not really obvious that a 1.0a1.dev123 release refers to a
> snaphost *before* the 1.0a1 release. The string "pre" is more commonly
> used for such pre-release snapshots.
> 
> For the .post123 tag, I don't see a need for a "post" string at all,
> 1.0a1.123 is clearly a release or build *after* the 1.0a1 release
> and since the "1.123" is being treated as alpha version number,
> the post part processing can be dropped altogether.
> 
> For the .dev part the situation is similar: you can always
> choose a pre-release version that is not actually released and then
> issue follow up snapshots to this, e.g.
> 
> 	1.0a0.20091203
> 	1.0a0.20091204
> 	1.0a0.20091205
> 
> and so on for nightly builds during the development phase.
> 
> Instead of writing:
> 
> 	1.0a1.dev20091205
> 
> you'd then write
> 
> 	1.0a0.20091205
> 
> This is how Python itself is organizing the versions during
> development, BTW.
> 
FWIW, I agree with all of this section.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20091203/3d2aa2a4/attachment.pgp>