On 02.07.2007, at 20:54, Jim Fulton wrote:
See me response to Gary's note.
Here's what I propose:
1. We adopt the policy that a distribution's version number must be
of less or equal maturity than all of it's dependencies, where
maturity is based on it's position in the release cycle.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:34 AM, Bernd Dorn wrote:
...
what about having some kind of '--min-maturity=beta' where the
options are 'dev', 'a', 'b', 'c', 'final' or so
Can you think of a use case in which you'd want that? I feared we
might want something like this, which is why I brainstormed
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 03.07.2007, 06:19 -0400 schrieb Jim Fulton:
we have some packages around that have x.x.x.dev x.x.x-dev and i
think they are considered newer than x.x.xa1
a .dev release is older than a .a1 release (or a1). The '-' makes a
post-release tag, so x.x.x-dev is later
Hm, you're right. Note:
from pkg_resources import *
parse_version('1.0') parse_version('1.0-dev')
False
parse_version('1.0') parse_version('1.0-r10')
True
So dev gets special treatment. Wonderful. I guess that must be
intuitive.
Jim
On Jul 3, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Christian Theune
See me response to Gary's note.
Here's what I propose:
1. We adopt the policy that a distribution's version number must be
of less or equal maturity than all of it's dependencies, where
maturity is based on it's position in the release cycle. dev is less
mature than alpha is less mature
On 02.07.2007, at 20:54, Jim Fulton wrote:
See me response to Gary's note.
Here's what I propose:
1. We adopt the policy that a distribution's version number must be
of less or equal maturity than all of it's dependencies, where
maturity is based on it's position in the release cycle.
