Yeah, we dropped the ball on doing this for 4.5, we had talked about this after
4.4. I actually briefly looked at the pip versioning spec and realized I don't
really know how .rc0 behaves relative to other versions, so I gave up. If .rc0
is better, then I think we can adjust the release scripts pretty trivially.
> On Jan 22, 2018, at 22:55, Gregory Szorc <gregory.sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I produced Windows wheels and they had the .rc0 name instead of -rc. I didn't
> realize until after uploading the PyPI (again). I hid the rc0 version from
> PyPI so people can download the tarball. But if Windows users attempt to `pip
> install` the RC, they'll fail to compile unless they have the VS2008
> toolchain installed (which isn't likely).
> I think we should start tagging the RC with the rc0 name. That scheme is
> better because it allows for the existence of multiple RC releases. IMO we
> /should/ be doing an RC after every change to the stable branch during the
> freeze. The point of an RC is to get the to-be-release code into the hands of
> as many users as possible, right? A single RC that lags the final release by
> dozens of (often) dozens of changesets doesn't do that :/
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Augie Fackler <r...@durin42.com
> <mailto:r...@durin42.com>> wrote:
> Please update your package builds, thanks.
> There _shouldn't_ be any packaging surprises, but if you previously
> de-vendored excanvas.js you'll be pleased to know we no longer use it, and
> you can drop the dependency.
> Mercurial-packaging mailing list
Mercurial-packaging mailing list