On 29 January 2013 12:29, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > The specific intent of adding Version-Scheme is to relax the version > numbering requirement from "you *must* use PEP 386 version numbering" > to "you *should* use PEP 386 version numbering for new projects, but > if you're already using a different versioning scheme, here's how to > indicate the scheme you're actually using".
So given Vinay's comment that "legacy" is sufficiently flexible to encompass current schemes (which I haven't verified, but I trust Vinay's assertions on such things) then why not just have "legacy" and "pep386" and be done with it? If someone wants to propose semver (or any other scheme that has thus far not been debated) let them raise a new PEP. I think that's basically what everyone is saying, it's just that mentioning semver muddied the waters. Paul. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
