RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jan 6 01:08:34 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-January/097041.html

Hi,

I think we've reached a consensus on those two PEPs.

Although, there's one last point that was forgotten in the discussions
: I've introduced "rc" in the pre-releases markers, so PEP 386 is
compatible with Python's own version scheme.  "rc" comes right after
"c" in the sorting. It's slightly redundant with the "c" marker but I
don't think this really matters as long as consumers know how to order
them (a < b < c < rc). I have also stated that "c" is the preferred
marker for third party projects, from PEP 386 point of view.

Is there anything else I can do to make those two PEPs accepted ?

Regards
Tarek

-- 
Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-January/097041.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 386 and PEP 345