Am 07.11.09 16:37, schrieb Tarek Ziad�:
>  On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Jung <lists@[...].com> wrote:
>  [..]
>    
> >  - supports too much different versioning schemas. Both
> >   schema supported by setuptools and the one proposed
> >   by Tarek in some PEP are totally over-engineered.
> >   A simple and *enforced* versioning schema is what
> >   I want to see.
> >     
>  Unfortunately, as long as we have release candidates, and development versions,
>  we need a more complex scheme that MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO.
> 
>    
Do we need/want development on PyPI? At least not me.

MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO.PICO + |a-c]1..N

should be good enough.


>  Last, we can encourage people to use it, but we can't enforced it:
>    
Of course we can..
>  I know people that are happily using dates for their versions, and we
>  can't forbid
>  them to push their work on pypi just because of that.
>    
..one must not accept and support a whole zoo of private numbering
schemes. Agree on a common and minimal standard and enforce
the standard.
>  We can try to educate then, but that's their pick at the end I think.
>    
Teaching is a good thing...
>  An enterprise PyPI could do enforce it, but not our community PyPI imho

"community" does not imply that we can not agree on certain rules and
standards
for PyPI - otherwise PyPI remains as it sometimes appears - an unflashed
package toilet. Python as a quality programming language needs a package
repository with some minimum standards - I completely disagree with
"community"
as a synonym for "we must make everyone happy".

Andreas