Joe Peterson wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> 3. "Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the >>> scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like >>> 1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely." >>> Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works reasonably >>> well. I don't see any need to match upstream more closely. I'd rather >>> like to keep the more uniform way of handling suffixes like rc and >>> alpha, that we have now. >> >> Please explain why 1.2_rc3 is legal but 1.2-rc3 is not. > > I actually like the current format in that it does *not* allow "-" in > the version. For example, pkg-2.3.1_rc5 makes it clear that the string > from "2" to "rc5" is the version. If were were to allow pkg-2.3.1-rc5, > this could get visually confusing (looks a bit like pkg-2.3.1-r5). In > this case, *less* flexibility and more strict rules serve a good > purpose, I think. > Agreed; the purpose of an internal format specification is not to allow NN variants on a theme all over the place. It should nail things down to ONE variant which everybody can collaborate around.
I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at least 5 years. Until I see that happening independently of this current hooha, I'm going to consider this 'reason' to be yaf "straw man". -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
