[Distutils] PEP440: >1.7 vs >=1.7

[Chris Jerdonek]

On Sunday, December 28, 2014, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmingov at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I personally think that 1.7.1 matching >1.7 muddies some applications
> of it being used with date-based versions with this pep also supports.
> This (as best I can tell) means that now 2014.09.31 will match >
> 2014.09 which seems like a rather terrible idea. No one expects a date
> to be padded with 0s. I'm also fully against special casing date-based
> versions because the whole point of 440 was to make versioning
> consistent and reliable and I wholeheartedly want that.


To add another wrinkle, do you think 2014.09.01 should or shouldn't match
"<=2014.09"?

This is an example of the case I mentioned at the end of my previous email.

--Chris



>
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Chris Jerdonek
> <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Marcus Smith <qwcode at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > * 1.7.1 matches >1.7 (previously it did not)
> >>>
> >>> This sounds like a straight up bug fix in the packaging module to me -
> the
> >>> PEP 440 zero padding should apply to *all* checks, not just to equality
> >>> checks, as you can't sensibly compare release segments with different
> >>> numbers of elements.
> >>
> >> OK.  to be clear, I guess you really didn't follow the previous thread?
> >> I specifically raised the concern over 1.7.1 not matching >1.7 (in the
> >> current implementation), but most people were arguing it was a logical
> >> interpretation of PEP440.
> >
> > I think Nick's e-mail clarifies it for me.
> >
> > In my e-mail, I was reconciling the current behavior with the current
> > wording of the PEP, which says, "Exclusive ordered comparisons are
> > similar to inclusive ordered comparisons, except that the comparison
> > operators are < and > and the clause MUST be effectively interpreted
> > as implying the prefix based version exclusion clause != V.*."
> >
> > I now see that the wording is a bit ambiguous (or at least that I was
> > misinterpreting it).  I interpreted it to mean that prefix-based
> > version exclusion should be used *instead* of zero-padding, whereas
> > with Nick's e-mail, I see that the meaning is that prefix-based
> > exclusion should be used *after* applying zero padding.
> >
> > The clarified interpretation also addresses an asymmetry of the
> > previously mentioned (and now apparently incorrect) "series"
> > interpretation, which I'm not sure was mentioned before.  Namely,
> > 1.7.2 satisfies ">=1.7" but does not satisfy "<=1.7".  With the series
> > interpretation, the latter wouldn't be consistent (since 1.7.2 is part
> > of the series under that interpretation).
> >
> > --Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Marcus
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org <javascript:;>
> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org <javascript:;>
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20141228/20f827cb/attachment-0001.html>