Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On behalf of the Distutils-SIG, I would like to propose PEP 386 for
inclusion in the sdtlib, and have a final discussion here on
Python-dev.
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0386
This is excellent. Thankyou for doing this, I hope we can get it
accepted and implemented as
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
[..]
>
> Furthermore, I've seen some patterns in those 5% that can be worked
> out so I'll probably be able to lower it to 3%
Done:
Total Packages : 8690
Already Match : 7645.0 (87.97%)
Have Suggestion : 768.0 (8.84%)
No Suggestion :
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[..]
>
> Eric's suggestion of NormalizedVersion sounds best to me - it exactly
> describes the intended role of the class.
>
Done. Steve Steiner added a nice functional test that tries the scheme
on *all* pypi versions:
MacZiade:distutilsver
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Tarek Ziadé writes:
>
>> I've started to add another section in the PEP to summarize this
>> discussion but then I realized that we are already giving the answer
>> in the PEP in the "Requisites and current status"
>>
>> I made it clearer thoug
Tarek Ziadé writes:
> I've started to add another section in the PEP to summarize this
> discussion but then I realized that we are already giving the answer
> in the PEP in the "Requisites and current status"
>
> I made it clearer though, by adding an extra sentence with an example.
Thank you.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Ben Finney
[..]
>
> Yes, I'm referring to the discussion that were had over “why do we want
> special keywords that mess with the default alphanumerical ordering of
> version string components?” discussion.
>
> That needs to be addressed in the PEP, since it's germa
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Darren Dale wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>> Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
but "Standard"
doesn't really express what
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
[..]
>
> No, the PEP document itself should either contain the questions and
> answers, or contain a link to the discussion along with a brief summary
> of what it was about and a explicit statement of its outcome.
Ok then, I'll add a section sum
Darren Dale wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
>>> Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
>>> but "Standard"
>>> doesn't really express what we want to achieve here I think,
>> I think StandardVersion i
Tarek Ziadé writes:
> Now by "alternate" if you mean a proposal that is completely different
> from what is in the PEP, I don't recall that we had any viable
> alternative proposals in the discussions. By "viable" I mean something
> that provides what we need : a schema that allows us to compare
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:49:33 +0100, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tarek_Ziad=E9?=
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
> > I don't see any information in the PEP for alternate proposals that were
> > made during its drafting. It's customary to explain what alternative
> > proposals ha
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Tarek Ziadé writes:
>
>> I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
>> will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
>> further discussion which won't take things any further, I propose to
>> all
Tarek Ziadé writes:
> I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
> will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
> further discussion which won't take things any further, I propose to
> allow final comments from python-dev and then look for a final
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
>> but "Standard"
>> doesn't really express what we want to achieve here I think,
>
> I think StandardVersion is fine.
I prefer Sta
Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
>
> Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
> but "Standard"
> doesn't really express what we want to achieve here I think,
I think StandardVersion is fine.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Pyt
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Also, the word "rational" is not familiar to me in the context of versions;
is this term known outside of this proposal? I couldn't find any reference
to it.
Do you have a better suggestion ? I was thinking about StandardVersion
but "Standard"
doesn't really express what we w
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Floris Bruynooghe
wrote:
[..]
>> N.N[.N]+[{abc}N[.N]+][.postN][.devN]
>>
>> Notice that the last two +'s are gone, and overall I think this is more
>> consistent psuedo-code.
>
> That's quite readable and more consistent then the original
> pseudo-code, I like it.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
[..]
> Great work, Tarek. I think you've managed to establish a good body of
> knowledge on this and the proposal seems sound.
Thanks :)
>
> That said, I think the terms ``LooseVersion`` and ``StrictVersion`` are less
> than optimal. Really, w
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
> 2009/12/10 Darren Dale :
>> Those aren't new proposals, though, they already exist in distutils.
>
> I see. Thanks for clarifying –– maybe the PEP should better explain this.
It is already pretty clear:
"Distutils currently provides a Strict
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> More English language fixes:
I have just applied them. Thanks.
Tarek
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mai
2009/12/10 Darren Dale :
> Those aren't new proposals, though, they already exist in distutils.
I see. Thanks for clarifying –– maybe the PEP should better explain this.
\malthe
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/ma
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:24 AM, sstein...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
>
>> On 12/8/09 6:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>> I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
>>> will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding month
On Dec 10, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
> On 12/8/09 6:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
>> will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
>> further discussion which won't take things any further, I pr
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 05:41:01AM +, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> Floris Bruynooghe gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:18PM -0800, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> > > I don't know what notation this versioning schema was trying for,
> > > especially
> in regards to what the +'s m
On 12/8/09 6:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
further discussion which won't take things any further, I propose to
allow final comments from python-dev and then look
Floris Bruynooghe gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:18PM -0800, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> > I don't know what notation this versioning schema was trying for, especially
in regards to what the +'s mean:
> > N.N[.N]+[abc]N[.N]+[.postN+][.devN+]
> >
> The full regex (stripped from
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:18PM -0800, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> Technical question:
>
> I don't know what notation this versioning schema was trying for, especially
> in regards to what the +'s mean:
> N.N[.N]+[abc]N[.N]+[.postN+][.devN+]
> Am I missing something here? You could maybe explain
More English language fixes:
-In Python there are no real restriction yet on how a project should
+In Python there are no real restrictions yet on how a project should
-Furthermore, this will make OS packagers work easier when repackaging standards
-compliant distributions, as of now it can be di
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On behalf of the Distutils-SIG, I would like to propose PEP 386 for
>> inclusion in the sdtlib, and have a final discussion here on
>> Python-dev.
>>
>> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0386
>
> Some Engli
In article
<94bdd2610912080916s2dbb79d0ub8a77295bba92...@mail.gmail.com>,
Tarek Ziad? wrote:
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0386
It looks great to me. Very complete and easy to understand.
-- Russell
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pyt
Terry Reedy wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Hello,
On behalf of the Distutils-SIG, I would like to propose PEP 386 for
inclusion in the sdtlib, and have a final discussion here on
Python-dev.
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0386
Some English copy editor comments:
"and it will optionally allow
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Hello,
On behalf of the Distutils-SIG, I would like to propose PEP 386 for
inclusion in the sdtlib, and have a final discussion here on
Python-dev.
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0386
Some English copy editor comments:
"and it will optionally allow to use that field"
I
Hello,
On behalf of the Distutils-SIG, I would like to propose PEP 386 for
inclusion in the sdtlib, and have a final discussion here on
Python-dev.
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0386
This PEP has been discussed for some time in Distutils-SIG, and we
agreed there that it's important to have
33 matches
Mail list logo
