RetroSearch Browse

Sat Feb 25 17:50:07 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116825.html

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:24:47 -0500
"Eric V. Smith" <eric at trueblade.com> wrote:
> On 2/25/2012 11:18 AM, Zachary Ware wrote:
> > Anyhow; I have to say I like Nick's idea put forth in PEP 413, but I
> > agree that the extra versioning info could get pretty awkward.
> > Therefore, why not just make stdlib upgrades part of the regular
> > maintenance releases? As long as there is absolutely no change in usage
> > from (for example) 3.3.0 to 3.3.1, what's wrong with adding new (stdlib)
> > features in 3.3.1?
> 
> The problem is that you can't say "my code works on Python 3.3". You now
> have to specify the micro version number as well: "my code works on
> Python 3.3.1+". We've made this mistake before; I can't see it happening
> again.

I don't see how it's a mistake. It's only a mistake if it breaks the
convention on version numbers, which is precisely what we are
discussing to change.

Regards

Antoine.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116825.html below:

Faster evolution of the Python Standard Library