On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:34:39PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I just pushed Donald's final round of edits in response to the
feedback on the last PEP 440 thread, and as such I'm happy to announce
that I am accepting PEP 440 as the recommended approach to identifying
versions and specifying
Hi all,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 22:34 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I just pushed Donald's final round of edits in response to the
feedback on the last PEP 440 thread, and as such I'm happy to announce
that I am accepting PEP 440 as the recommended approach to identifying
versions and specifying
On 2 September 2014 16:43, Marius Gedminas mar...@pov.lt wrote:
Minor nit: http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/#final-releases
still uses the older
N[.N]+
spelling, which perhaps should be changed to
N(.N)*
to be consistent with
It is not compatible with
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/#semantic-versioning
Does that mean that packages that choose this way of versioning will
not be supported by
Python tools anymore?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Richard Jones rich...@python.org wrote:
Wow, a huge thanks to
On Aug 26, 2014, at 5:25 AM, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not compatible with
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/#semantic-versioning
Does that mean that packages that choose this way of versioning will
not be supported by
Python tools anymore?
I’m not sure
Hi,
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
I just pushed Donald's final round of edits in response to the
feedback on the last PEP 440 thread, and as such I'm happy to announce
that I am accepting PEP 440 as the recommended approach to identifying
versions and specifying dependencies
I just pushed Donald's final round of edits in response to the
feedback on the last PEP 440 thread, and as such I'm happy to announce
that I am accepting PEP 440 as the recommended approach to identifying
versions and specifying dependencies when distributing Python
software.
The PEP is available
Wow, a huge thanks to everyone named (as well as you, Nick ;) for
persevering and getting this through.
On 22 August 2014 22:34, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
I just pushed Donald's final round of edits in response to the
feedback on the last PEP 440 thread, and as such I'm happy to
