Am 07.11.09 16:37, schrieb Tarek Ziadé: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Jung <li...@zopyx.com> wrote: > [..] > >> - supports too much different versioning schemas. Both >> schema supported by setuptools and the one proposed >> by Tarek in some PEP are totally over-engineered. >> A simple and *enforced* versioning schema is what >> I want to see. >> > Unfortunately, as long as we have release candidates, and development > versions, > we need a more complex scheme that MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO. > > Do we need/want development on PyPI? At least not me.
MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO.PICO + |a-c]1..N should be good enough. > Last, we can encourage people to use it, but we can't enforced it: > Of course we can.. > I know people that are happily using dates for their versions, and we > can't forbid > them to push their work on pypi just because of that. > ..one must not accept and support a whole zoo of private numbering schemes. Agree on a common and minimal standard and enforce the standard. > We can try to educate then, but that's their pick at the end I think. > Teaching is a good thing... > An enterprise PyPI could do enforce it, but not our community PyPI imho "community" does not imply that we can not agree on certain rules and standards for PyPI - otherwise PyPI remains as it sometimes appears - an unflashed package toilet. Python as a quality programming language needs a package repository with some minimum standards - I completely disagree with "community" as a synonym for "we must make everyone happy". Andreas
<<attachment: lists.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
