On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Alex Clark <[email protected]> wrote: ... > Well it appears to be very fast, congrats! :-) Here's `buildout init` in > 1.6.3 vs. 2.0.0a4: > > - bin/buildout init 1.18s user 0.20s system 48% cpu 2.874 total (Buildout > 1.6.3) > - bin/buildout init 0.21s user 0.06s system 96% cpu 0.274 total (Buildout > 2.0.0a4)
That's cool. Wasn't me. :) > Also noticed case-sensitivity in recipe names, which IIRC was not there > before. Nothing's changed there AFAIK. > However, I wonder if you'd consider "hiding" (on PyPI) the alpha > releases until we can make sure 2.0.0 works in most cases where 1.6.x does? To what end? AFAIK, there's no harm in having buildout 2.0.0a4 unhidden. We've had earlier alphas out there for years. Buildout 1 (1.4 and later) won't upgrade itself to buildout 2, nor will it use zc.recipe.egg 2. Furthermore, hiding the release won't hide it from buildout, since buildout uses the simple index by default and no releases in the simple indexes (or replicas) are hidden. This won't be an issue until buildout 2 final. By then, I hope we'll add logic to 1.6 to prevent upgrading above 1. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
