-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 13.07.2010, 20:48 Uhr, schrieb Christian Zagrodnick <c...@gocept.com>:
>> Actually I was thinking about the individual packages. I assume
>> dropping Python 2.4 should bump the respective package version at least
>> from 1.x.y to 1.x+1.0, right?
> ZTK 1.1 will officially not support Python < 2.6 but it won't seek to
> actively break 2.4 and 2.5.
> It sounds like you are suggesting what to do about packages that
> definitely don't work with < 2.6. While I would have thought a syntax
> change shouldn't mean a major version, breaking compatibility obviously
> warrants some thought. But then I wouldn't expect a release just based on
> new syntax. Have you got a specific example in mind?
I would say that a release of a ZTK package which drops support for a
Python version still supported by ZTK 1.0.x should get a second-level
version bump: that is the best possible signal that it is not a
candidate for inclusion in ZTK 1.0.x+1.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -