On 08/19/2015 09:28 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > On August 19, 2015 at 11:25:55 AM, Carl Meyer (c...@oddbird.net) wrote: >> In my ideal world, the version number would help convey unofficial-ness >> a bit more strongly, but after re-reading PEP 440 I don't think it >> leaves us with any good options. I considered post-releases (e.g. >> 1.6.11.post1), but "The use of post-releases to publish maintenance >> releases containing actual bug fixes is strongly discouraged." So given >> the lack of good options, I'm OK with 1.6.11.x. Anyone else on the core >> team have a problem with that? > > > 1.6.11.x should work fine, though I’m confused why not just issue 1.6.12+?
Because that looks exactly like the version number an official Django release would use, and the idea is to be as clear as possible that these are not official Django releases. For some users (who don't read READMEs etc) the version number is one of the few things we can be pretty sure they'll see. Carl -- 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/55D4A159.5050605%40oddbird.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
