On 1/10/2012 12:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I changed the terminology in my latest changeset:
http://hg.python.org/devguide/rev/f39d063ab3dd
Important to notice is that the major / minor distinction isn't
relevant in most contexts, while the feature / bugfix distinction is.
Where "major" plays
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:57:03 -0500
Glyph wrote:
>
> Whatever your personal feelings, there is a precedent established in the API:
>
> >>> sys.version_info.major
> 2
> >>> sys.version_info.minor
> 7
> >>> sys.version_info.micro
> 1
>
> This strikes me as the most authoritative definition of the
http://semver.org/
This has made sense since Gentoo days.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:49:04 +
> Rob Cliffe wrote:
>> But "minor version" and "major version" are readily understandable to
>> the general reader, e.g. me, whereas "feature re
On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:49:04 +
> Rob Cliffe wrote:
>> But "minor version" and "major version" are readily understandable to
>> the general reader, e.g. me, whereas "feature release" and "release
>> series" I find are not. Couldn't the f
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:49:04 +
Rob Cliffe wrote:
> But "minor version" and "major version" are readily understandable to
> the general reader, e.g. me, whereas "feature release" and "release
> series" I find are not. Couldn't the first two terms be defined once
> and then used throughout?
On Jan 10, 2012, at 09:03 PM, Anthony Kong wrote:
>I don't find 'major' and 'minor' confusing too. Maybe because it is the
>designation used in linux community for years.
Neither do I. I read them as aliases for "leftmost digit" and "middle digit"
respectively, regardless of Python's interpretat
I don't find 'major' and 'minor' confusing too. Maybe because it is the
designation used in linux community for years.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Rob Cliffe wrote:
> But "minor version" and "major version" are readily understandable to the
> general reader, e.g. me, whereas "feature relea
But "minor version" and "major version" are readily understandable to
the general reader, e.g. me, whereas "feature release" and "release
series" I find are not. Couldn't the first two terms be defined once
and then used throughout?
Rob Cliffe
On 10/01/2012 04:05, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/9/2
On 1/9/2012 8:52 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Please avoid using the terms "minor version" and "major version", they
are confusing.
Indeed. "Feature release" (2.7, 3.2, 3.3) and "release series" (2.x,
3.x) are the least confusing terms we have
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Please avoid using the terms "minor version" and "major version", they
> are confusing.
Indeed. "Feature release" (2.7, 3.2, 3.3) and "release series" (2.x,
3.x) are the least confusing terms we have available.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Cogh
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:58:29 +0100
terry.reedy wrote:
>
> -Different branches are used at a time to represent different *minor versions*
> -in which development is made. All development should be done **first** in
> the
> -:ref:`in-development ` branch, and selectively backported
> -to other b
11 matches
Mail list logo
