On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Floris Bruynooghe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:53:11PM +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> As I expected, we didn't find a full consensus on the final PEP 386 >> schema on Distutils-SIG. But the one presented is >> good enough for what we need to express, as far as I am concerned (and >> some other people). >> >> This status understandable, and can go on for months in distutils-SIG. > > Your brain might have thought of more then your fingers wrote > here... Not sure what that's supposed to mean but the last sentence > doesn't look complete to me.
I'll need some help then on this one, must be my frenglish at work. What I want to say here is that it is understandable that we are not finding a consensus on a version scheme, and that we can bikeshed for ever about it. Bringing the discussion to Python-dev might lead to another round of discussions on the best scheme to adopt, but I eventually expect Guido to end it up with one of these: 1/ We'll pick the "foo" scheme. I accept the pep. 2/ this is not going to work, I reject that pep. (I want 1/ of course!) IOW I think that we already have everything needed to have a useful tool. Tarek _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
