RFC: versioning proposal Re: [Zope3-dev] Specifying upper limits in dependencies

[Jim Fulton]

See me response to Gary's note.

Here's what I propose:

1. We adopt the policy that a distribution's version number must be  
of less or equal maturity than all of it's dependencies, where  
maturity is based on it's position in the release cycle.  dev is less  
mature than alpha is less mature than beta is less mature than  
release candidate is less mature than final.  So, for example, dev  
release of zope.app.keyreference can depend on a dev release of  
ZODB3, but an alpha release of zope.app.keyreference cannot.  
Initially, this will be a convention. Eventually, I'll add a feature  
to buildout to warn when this policy is violated.

2. We approach the distutils sig with a feature request for an option  
to prefer final versions, so that, if we specify the new option, we  
always get the newest final version that satisfies a requirement, if  
there is one.  I suggest that this be --prefer-final. Anyone want to  
volunteer to bring this up there? :)  I don't think we'll see this  
feature any time soon.

3. I add a prefer-final option to buildout to prefer final versions.  
I think I can do this in the next week.

Thoughts?

Jim

On Jun 27, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Christian Theune wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the recent introduction of zope.app.keyreference-3.5dev with it's
> dependency on ZODB 3.9 brought some issues for me as I get  
> conflicts in
> various buildouts (e.g. z3c.zalchemy).
>
> In my example, z3c.zalchemy doesn't care about which version of
> zope.app.keyreference it gets, as even the newer one won't affect us.
>
> I'd like to re-visit the discussion about "stable package versions"  
> and
> how to approach the distutils list to get what we want.
>
> Currently I resolve this issue by putting a specific version in my
> project's buildout and leave the package (e.g. z3c.zalchemy) alone.
>
> I'm not sure whether this is the strategy we should use. Should
> z3c.zalchemy say: I'm good with zope.app.keyreference==3.4 (with our
> proposed syntax, or <3.5dev with the current syntax)?
>
> I'd like to see some consensus on how we handle those ...
>
> Christian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev at zope.org
> Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/jim%40zope.com
>

--
Jim Fulton			mailto:jim at zope.com		Python Powered!
CTO 				(540) 361-1714			http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation	http://www.zope.com		http://www.zope.org