On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 13:28 -0500, James Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That said, I think I agree with Steve's idea of ripping of > > sys.version_info: we've already stolen so much process from Python why > > not add to this list? > > The main reason I didn't do that is simply that Python goes a lot more > fine-grained than I'd ever expect Django to; things like the "micro" > version number, for example, don't really feel like they'd fit the > release "schedule" we've traditionally maintained. If it makes lives > simpler, though, I'll go for it; I just hope nobody ever asks why > we're not using the microversion ;) > >
Aren't we? Isn't 0.96.1 already using a micro version? Major = 0, minor = 96, micro = 1. Obviously, that's not where it lives now, because it doesn't fit in the tuple, but if django goes with a 5-tuple instead of a 3-tuple, it would be pretty silly to have something like (0, 96.0999999994, 0, 'final', 0), wouldn't it? Cheers, Cliff --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
