[Distutils] zc.buildout 2.0.0a4 released

[Jim Fulton]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Alex Clark <aclark at aclark.net> wrote:
> On 2012-11-19 22:08:59 +0000, Jim Fulton said:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Alex Clark <aclark at aclark.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> Well it appears to be very fast, congrats! :-) Here's `buildout init` in
>>> 1.6.3 vs. 2.0.0a4:
>>>
>>> - bin/buildout init  1.18s user 0.20s system 48% cpu 2.874 total
>>> (Buildout
>>> 1.6.3)
>>> - bin/buildout init  0.21s user 0.06s system 96% cpu 0.274 total
>>> (Buildout
>>> 2.0.0a4)
>>
>>
>> That's cool. Wasn't me. :)
>>
>>> Also noticed case-sensitivity in recipe names, which IIRC was not there
>>> before.
>>
>>
>> Nothing's changed there AFAIK.
>>
>>> However, I wonder if you'd consider "hiding" (on PyPI) the alpha
>>> releases until we can make sure 2.0.0 works in most cases where 1.6.x
>>> does?
>>
>>
>> To what end?
>
>
>
> If you don't hide the alpha, then "{easy_install, pip install} zc.buildout"
> installs the alpha, which is not what most people want; as it currently
> breaks things. E.g. I made this change this a.m. in order to be able to keep
> working:
>
> -
> https://github.com/aclark4life/binfiles/commit/eda7b0271cbbd2943a619aac77965c5b3cdb523a
>
>
>>
>> AFAIK, there's no harm in having buildout 2.0.0a4 unhidden.  We've had
>> earlier alphas out there for years.
>
>
>
> The earlier alphas were/are all hidden (because the exact same thing
> happened last time, IIRC).

OK, I see what's going on. This time I made a source release. Earlier
alphas were made as eggs, as they didn't work with Python 2 and if you
were using Python 2, you wouldn't get them.

Hiding the source release won't do any good, as pip uses the simple index.
The only way to keep pip from getting a non-final release is to not
put it in pypi. I'm pretty sick of this limitation in pip and
easy_install.

I've removed the buildout alpha from pypi.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm