On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Benji York wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas <mar...@gedmin.as>  
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
>>> 3) [no] superfluous version bumps on the trunk
>> I don't understand this one.  Could you elaborate?
> The current practice is that after doing a release you have to change
> the trunk version to the next release number (a version bump).
>>> - when using a checkout as a develop egg you don't have to worry  
>>> about finding
>>>   out the exact version used on the trunk, you can always just use  
>>> 0.
>> That's nice.  I think I tried to use
>>  [versions]
>>  my-dev-package =
> Yeah, it'd be nice if buildout allowed that or some other syntax (like
> "my-dev-package = *").

...Mmm, what Marius describes works for me, I believe.  I've  
definitely used that trick and showed it to others, at least.  Maybe  
it worked by mistake?  /me wonders if he was doing something wrong, or  
if he remembersbut doesn't take the time to try it again right now.

But to the bigger discussion here, I'm in the "I don't like 0" camp,  
as I've said before.

I like seeing the version number when I look at the trunk, which I do  
when I am doing different things than when I look at PyPI.

I am skeptical of an argument that it helps prevent accidental  
releases.  Is it not possible to make a '0' release?  If it is  
possible, then you have to be just as careful.  I think contemplating  
automation (e.g., release helpers that help you do the right thing,  
and warn you if it looks like you are doing a wrong one) is a better  
avenue in any case.  Certainly the automation of setup.py sdist  
register upload is a thing of beauty in my eyes, and it could be  
improved.  zest.releaser might be good, dunno.

Also, since I'm also in the "setup.py should be able to specify  
minimum versions" camp (admittedly unlike others, such as Benji, to my  
continued surprise), I have another issue.  When you use externals/ 
develop-eggs to organize your dependencies during interlocked jobs  
like my recent efforts with zc.buildout/zc.recipe.testing/ 
z3c.recipe.filetemplate, and you want to set a minimum dependency for  
one or more of the develop-eggs, this breaks if your external has a  
version number of 0.

The '0' pattern seems like a loss for me, and at best a minimal win  
for those that are arguing for it.  I'd prefer not to see a change,  
with the usual associated costs of communication and check-in police.

That said, I don't this is worth a big argument, or even a big  
discussion (or even this email? :-).  If the Zope triumverate or  
whatever it is these days changes the release document, so be it. :-)


Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to