On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > I agree. I am mostly trying to do binary packaging after all. The names will be "setuptools" and "pep386" referring to the sort method inside pkg_resources and the pep 386 method. Daniel
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
