On 7/24/06, Travis Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Straw has emphasized that the current strategy of appending the
SVN version number to development versions of the SVN tree makes it hard
to do version sorting.
His proposal is to not change the version number until the first beta
On 7/24/06, Travis Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Straw has emphasized that the current strategy of appending the
SVN version number to development versions of the SVN tree makes it hard
to do version sorting.
I am not sure what the problem is, but if the concern is that
Sasha wrote:
On 7/24/06, Travis Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Straw has emphasized that the current strategy of appending the
SVN version number to development versions of the SVN tree makes it hard
to do version sorting.
I am not sure what the problem is, but if the concern
On 7/24/06, Andrew Straw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I only brought up version numbers as strings because you did. I'm
not proposing we solve that problem. I see setuptools, in particular, as
the biggest thing to support, because it lets you have multiple versions
installed simultaneously.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 04:03:13PM -0700, Andrew Straw wrote:
Sasha wrote:
On 7/24/06, Andrew Straw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, Fernando, all this is so that we can still have the svn revision
number in __version__, but so that it doesn't screw up sorting.
Sorting __version__ is
On 7/25/06, Andrew Straw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1.0.2881 - This would sort after 1.0 (and 1.0b and 1.0c) and before 1.1
for most tools out there.
I like that best. Save the 1.1 prefix until it's actually released as such.
The numbering scheme needs to deal with what to call the patch tip of
