[Distutils] version scheme: a case for dropping ".devNNN" and ".postNNN"

Ben Finney ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Fri Jun 12 01:01:18 CEST 2009

Trent Mick <trentm at gmail.com> writes:

> Perhaps. I'm wondering if the separation of "version" (does not
> include the ".dev") and "build_number" helps clear up some of the
> cases.

If they are separate components (where each component from left to right
is entirely subordinate to the preceding component), then that
separation is implied. Version ‘1.2.3’ can have as many ‘.devXXXX’ as
desired, all of which will compare previous to version ‘1.2.4’.

> If "1.2.3.dev456"-type version strings don't appear in packages
> released to PyPI, then the job of the downstream RPM/.deb packagers is
> easier (they then don't need to care about the spelling of the version
> with the build number).

If the version comparison semantics are such that simple “compare
non-digits per ASCII, compare digit sequences as integers” works within
a component, I'm not aware of any distribution downstream that can't
just use them as-is. What specific problems can you see with that?

> Have a "RationalReleaseVersion()" that is just the non-dev part of the
> proposal.

Let's choose a name that doesn't add to the confusion between the
non-number “version string” and the mathematical concept of “rational
number”. Perhaps ‘SimpleVersion’ is a better name.

 \       "Success is going from one failure to the next without a loss |
  `\                             of enthusiasm."  -- Winston Churchill |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list