2015-06-23 13:23 GMT+02:00 Loïc Bistuer <loic.bist...@gmail.com>: > > > On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:24, Aymeric Augustin < > aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > > > > Besides, honestly, 1.10 is just ugly :-) > > I don't really see anything wrong with 1.10+ versions but maybe that's > because this scheme is commonplace in libraries that I've used. The 2.0 and > 2.1 exceptions to the new policy are even uglier to me and already > introduced a fair amount of confusion to people reviewing the proposals. > > Also I really like that Django 2.0 would coincide with dropping support > for Python 2. That's most certainly the biggest backwards incompatibility > we'll ever have :) >
Just wanted to voice my opinion from the sidelines as a "regular developer" (Django user) here. I'm very much +1 to Loïc's suggestion. The changes to originally planned version numbering is a very minor inconvenience compared to the confusing 2.0 and 2.1 exceptions. Aligning as closely to semver as possibe is a much less confusing, IMHO, and 1.10+ version numbering (whether one think it's "ugly" or not) is commonplace with semver versioning. Frankly, bumping to 2.0 for no special reason other than it being "after 1.9" is more confusing than going to 1.10 and having 2.0 being a backwards-breaking release. Cheers, Anders -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAC35HNn4w3pCOpKHjoxaXmTfisKo%3D1X8c2p43MNYVeYYMryGuQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
