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

[Jodok Batlogg]

On 02.07.2007, at 20:54, Jim Fulton wrote:

> 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.

+1

> 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.

+1

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

+1

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev at zope.org
> Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/batlogg.lists% 
> 40lovelysystems.com
>

--
"Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules."
   -- The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Jodok Batlogg, Lovely Systems
Schmelzhütterstraße 26a, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria
phone: +43 5572 908060, fax: +43 5572 908060-77


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2454 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20070702/efc30310/smime.bin