Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-5-31 22:04 +0200: > ... > How about > > foo 2.>=5 This seems really weird to me. I much prefer: "foo 2, >=2.5" >>> >>> Would you be able to write >>> >>> foo 2.4, >=2.4.3 >> >> Yup. > >Hmm, ok, then I'm at least not against it. But I still think my >variant is shorter and more self-explanatory. It, definitely, is shorter -- but I cannot see why it should be self-explanatory. It severely bends the usual meaning of ">=": I associate it strongly with a binary operator -- and "2.>=5" goes strongly against this association. -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
On Jun 1, 2007, at 7:04 AM, Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Any release tagged as "alpha", "beta", "rc", "pre", or with an SVN revision. I agree with Tres' goal. I think setuptools refers to those as "pre-release tags". And I think anything that has a pre-release tag should be considered unstable. SVN revisions are provided as post-release tags. wow, that's not good... If I'm running a production setup, I'd be mortified if upgrading a library with setuptools suddenly pulled down a load of pre or post release eggs :-S I know buildout lets your feeze egg version numbers, but not doing silly things seems like something setuptools should do ;-) As I mentioned earlier, "silly" is a matter of policy. I'll note (not proudly) that both setuptools and buildout are both currently on a "pre release" status. I plan to get buildout to 1.0 rsn. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
Jim Fulton wrote: Any release tagged as "alpha", "beta", "rc", "pre", or with an SVN revision. I agree with Tres' goal. I think setuptools refers to those as "pre-release tags". And I think anything that has a pre-release tag should be considered unstable. SVN revisions are provided as post-release tags. wow, that's not good... If I'm running a production setup, I'd be mortified if upgrading a library with setuptools suddenly pulled down a load of pre or post release eggs :-S I know buildout lets your feeze egg version numbers, but not doing silly things seems like something setuptools should do ;-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
Tres Seaver wrote: Another feature I'm not sure is already in setuptools: - I *don't* want dev releases to replace production ones implicitly: no package should be able to install a non-released version without explicit callout. If this isn't already the default behavior, then I'd like syntax for spelling it. +lots... I haven't been paying huge amounts of attention, but I've noticed what seemed to be a few people complaining about dev eggs stomping on their production eggs :-S Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
On 31 May 2007, at 22:00 , Jim Fulton wrote: On May 31, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: On 31 May 2007, at 21:50 , Jim Fulton wrote: On May 31, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Combined with the fact that that great majority of packages don't change very much after they have become stable, I think most package dependencies could be expressed very simply if there was a simple syntax to specify *just* the major version. In the context of setuptools, I think "*" could be used, as has been suggested, but without leading =s. So, to specify foo version 2, I think the following syntax would be very reasonable: foo 2* Why can't this be foo >2 ? This wouldn't prevent someone from specifying a minimum version. For example, to combine this with a minimum requirement of 2.5: foo 2* >=2.5 How about foo 2.>=5 This seems really weird to me. I much prefer: "foo 2, >=2.5" Would you be able to write foo 2.4, >=2.4.3 Yup. Hmm, ok, then I'm at least not against it. But I still think my variant is shorter and more self-explanatory. (Of course, I have to sell this to PJE. :) Not only to him, I guess... ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
On May 31, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: On 31 May 2007, at 21:50 , Jim Fulton wrote: On May 31, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Combined with the fact that that great majority of packages don't change very much after they have become stable, I think most package dependencies could be expressed very simply if there was a simple syntax to specify *just* the major version. In the context of setuptools, I think "*" could be used, as has been suggested, but without leading =s. So, to specify foo version 2, I think the following syntax would be very reasonable: foo 2* Why can't this be foo >2 ? This wouldn't prevent someone from specifying a minimum version. For example, to combine this with a minimum requirement of 2.5: foo 2* >=2.5 How about foo 2.>=5 This seems really weird to me. I much prefer: "foo 2, >=2.5" Would you be able to write foo 2.4, >=2.4.3 Yup. Jim (Of course, I have to sell this to PJE. :) -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
On 31 May 2007, at 21:50 , Jim Fulton wrote: On May 31, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Combined with the fact that that great majority of packages don't change very much after they have become stable, I think most package dependencies could be expressed very simply if there was a simple syntax to specify *just* the major version. In the context of setuptools, I think "*" could be used, as has been suggested, but without leading =s. So, to specify foo version 2, I think the following syntax would be very reasonable: foo 2* Why can't this be foo >2 ? This wouldn't prevent someone from specifying a minimum version. For example, to combine this with a minimum requirement of 2.5: foo 2* >=2.5 How about foo 2.>=5 This seems really weird to me. I much prefer: "foo 2, >=2.5" Would you be able to write foo 2.4, >=2.4.3 ? ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
On May 31, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Combined with the fact that that great majority of packages don't change very much after they have become stable, I think most package dependencies could be expressed very simply if there was a simple syntax to specify *just* the major version. In the context of setuptools, I think "*" could be used, as has been suggested, but without leading =s. So, to specify foo version 2, I think the following syntax would be very reasonable: foo 2* Why can't this be foo >2 ? Nevermind, I shot too fast. I realize that "foo 2*" *only* wants foo 2.x and not 3.x... So, in my suggested spelling, I would write it as foo 2.>=0 I wouldn't mind shorting that to foo 2.* though I'd like to go even farther to: "foo 2". Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
On May 31, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Combined with the fact that that great majority of packages don't change very much after they have become stable, I think most package dependencies could be expressed very simply if there was a simple syntax to specify *just* the major version. In the context of setuptools, I think "*" could be used, as has been suggested, but without leading =s. So, to specify foo version 2, I think the following syntax would be very reasonable: foo 2* Why can't this be foo >2 ? This wouldn't prevent someone from specifying a minimum version. For example, to combine this with a minimum requirement of 2.5: foo 2* >=2.5 How about foo 2.>=5 This seems really weird to me. I much prefer: "foo 2, >=2.5" Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
Am Donnerstag, den 31.05.2007, 11:28 -0400 schrieb Jim Fulton: > On May 31, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Christian Theune wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, den 31.05.2007, 11:14 -0400 schrieb Tres Seaver: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> Jim Fulton wrote: > >>> What do you mean by a "dev" release? > >> > >> Any release tagged as "alpha", "beta", "rc", "pre", or with an SVN > >> revision. > > > > I agree with Tres' goal. I think setuptools refers to those as > > "pre-release tags". And I think anything that has a pre-release tag > > should be considered unstable. Right, however, they form a combination of pre- and post-release tags, e.g: zope.interface-3.4dev-r1234 is the '1234' post-release of the 'dev' pre-release and so overall from the perspective of 3.4 a pre-release. -- gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
On May 31, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Christian Theune wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 31.05.2007, 11:14 -0400 schrieb Tres Seaver: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: What do you mean by a "dev" release? Any release tagged as "alpha", "beta", "rc", "pre", or with an SVN revision. I agree with Tres' goal. I think setuptools refers to those as "pre-release tags". And I think anything that has a pre-release tag should be considered unstable. SVN revisions are provided as post-release tags. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
On May 31, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: On May 31, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: I'd rather have the dot, e.g. "foo 2.* >= 2.5", just for clarity: - It makes the intent clearer (that you want any version in the "two dot" release line). - It disambiguates the case where the version number might have double digits (e.g, '0.1' vs. '0.10'). This depends on how the * is interpreted. setuptools already treats dots as optional in many cases and this would be one more. I also prefer the last syntax I suggested without the "*". So, the example would become: "foo 2, >=2.5" That seems like an empty set to me. Not to me. :) "foo ==2, >=2.5" would be a specification for the empty set. Another feature I'm not sure is already in setuptools: - I *don't* want dev releases to replace production ones implicitly: no package should be able to install a non-released version without explicit callout. If this isn't already the default behavior, then I'd like syntax for spelling it. What do you mean by a "dev" release? Any release tagged as "alpha", "beta", "rc", "pre", or with an SVN revision. I'm fairly sure that this isn't supported. It seems like a reasonable thing to request. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: A thought on backward compatibility and minimum versions
Am Donnerstag, den 31.05.2007, 11:14 -0400 schrieb Tres Seaver: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jim Fulton wrote: > > What do you mean by a "dev" release? > > Any release tagged as "alpha", "beta", "rc", "pre", or with an SVN revision. I agree with Tres' goal. I think setuptools refers to those as "pre-release tags". And I think anything that has a pre-release tag should be considered unstable. Christian -- gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
