Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> As a simple proposal: a new "Version-Scheme" field, with currently
> supported values "setuptools" and "pep386", and a clause allowing
> future "pepXYZ" versioning schemes. The version scheme field then
> effectively defines how versions are sorted for ordered co
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 28 January 2013 13:26, Daniel Holth wrote:
> > We had a discussion about version schemes a while back along with Vinay.
> It
> > seems to me that the Major.Minor.Micro sorting is pretty much universal,
> but
> > when you want to compare al
On 28 January 2013 13:26, Daniel Holth wrote:
> We had a discussion about version schemes a while back along with Vinay. It
> seems to me that the Major.Minor.Micro sorting is pretty much universal, but
> when you want to compare alphanumeric patch / rc versions within the same
> Major.Minor.Micro
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> >> On 1/28/13 7:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > 3. There needs to be a mechanism to inform automated tools of th
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> On 1/28/13 7:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> > 3. There needs to be a mechanism to inform automated tools of the
>>> *right* version ordering to use, with PEP 386 being the defau
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On 1/28/13 7:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> ...
>
> > 3. There needs to be a mechanism to inform automated tools of the
>> *right* version ordering to use, with PEP 386 being the default.
>
> what happens when you compare two versions from two d
On 1/28/13 7:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
...
> 3. There needs to be a mechanism to inform automated tools of the
> *right* version ordering to use, with PEP 386 being the default.
what happens when you compare two versions from two different schemes ?
Cheers
Tarek
--
Tarek Ziadé · http://ziade.
I am close to accepting the latest draft of PEP 426 as v1.3 of the
package metadata standard.
However, while I agree the current requirement that version numbers
*must* be in PEP 386 format needs to be relaxed, I don't think the
text as written quite achieves that.
1. The "Version" field descript
