On 18 Feb 2013 04:54, "Fred Drake" <f...@fdrake.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not likely to matter for a while as the current md v1 tools don't understand > > this new obsolescence rule :-) > > Using a separate file for post-obsolescence-rule metadata versions would > allow coexistance, which would likely improve adoption.
Perhaps, but not something we actually need to worry about until we're contemplating metadata 3.0, especially since whether or not it helps will depend on why we're breaking backwards compatibility. At the very least, updated wheel, sdist and installation database specs would be needed to allow multiple versions of the metadata. As Daniel pointed out, easy_install and pip also don't follow this rule yet, so it won't really have any impact if we never get to metadata 3.0. Cheers, Nick. > > > -Fred > > -- > Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at fdrake.net> > "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
