On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > On 05/09/2016 05:19 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: >> >> On 05/07/2016 09:32 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > >>> I also checked pytoml at https://github.com/avakar/pytoml and it looks >>> like it's pretty stable; no changes in the past 5 months except to >>> support Python 3.5 and only 3 issues. And the format is simple enough >>> that if someone had to fork the code like Nathaniel suggested or we did >>> it from scratch it wouldn't be a huge burden. > > > After further consideration, and pytoml's author's comment about the spec > changing without a version increase, I think we might be better off rolling > our own.
He's a bit confused -- they didn't change 0.4.0; they made changes in their dev branch working towards 1.0.0 (some cleanups related to the date/time stuff I think?"). But of course when you go to github it shows you the current dev version, and the dev version has a prominent link at the top to the 0.4.0 tag, so if you're skimming it's easy to misread it as saying that what you're looking at is 0.4.0. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig