[Distutils] PEP 426, round 733 ;)

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 05:25:50 CET 2013

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Donald Stufft <donald.stufft at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not against the change in particular though. The reference impl in
> distutils2
> protected against really high version numbers, I'm not sure what the logic
> behind
> that was except for protecting against "dates" as a version number. Might be
> there
> was a particular case they were making sure was rational. Only mentioning
> here
> because major only project numbers can get big which reminded me!

So long as the numeric component is monotonically increasing, there is
no problem with a date-based versioning scheme under PEP 386 or PEP
426. If distutils2 was ruling them out, it was applying an additional
constraint not present in the spec.

(Date based versioning is actually one of the use cases I intended to
include in the next PEP draft - ".postN" releases are quite handy for
that use case, as they make it easy to do hotfix releases while still
retaining a purely date-based scheme for the numeric component)


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list