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 > Mercurialfirstname.lastname@example.org > <mailto:Mercurialemail@example.com> > https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-packaging > <https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-packaging> > >
_______________________________________________ Mercurial-packaging mailing list Mercurialfirstname.lastname@example.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-packaging