At 09:41 AM 11/28/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
That's completely wrong, the proposal is a benefit for all of us, because it standardizes something that is already being done.
You seem to have misunderstood me; I'm objecting to Ben Finney's "simple alphanumeric sort", not to PEP 386 in general.
PEP 386 propose a scheme to be adopted by developers or tools, but if some people want to stick with their own internal version scheme for development versions or post/pre release versions, they can do it without any problem. And they don't have to follow any PEP 386 convention for their internal work.
This is not actually true, since developers working in a team situation can be sharing and building binary releases of these packages.
So you have two choices: - an implicit, heuristic ordering (that's what is happening today) - a explicit, documented ordering. that's the goal of PEP 386.
Setuptools' version scheme *is* explicit and documented -- as you should know, since I pointed you to those docs when you were writing PEP 386.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
