I am +1 on the 1.10 - 1.11 - 2.0 plan; I think the discrepancy between 2.x and the future version numbering scheme will in practice be _much_ more confusing (and already has been).
I have never found any objection to 1.10-style version numbers convincing. Dotted version numbers are clearly a representation of a tuple of integers, not an odd decimal notation, as evidenced by the fact that every commonly-used dotted version numbering scheme invests each location in the tuple with some kind of semantics. In any case, precedent for such version numbers in Django was set several years ago when we shipped 1.4.10; by now we're up to 1.4.20! (Not to mention 1.5.12 and 1.6.11). FWIW, I did a GitHub code search and in the first ten pages of results I found zero uses of RemovedInDjango20Warning that weren't instances of someone committing their virtualenv (with a copy of Django) to git. So I am not concerned about changing those warnings (especially since we can provide backwards compatibility). Carl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/558989BE.3090906%40oddbird.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
