[Distutils] PEP 386 status - last round here ?

[Ben Finney]

"P.J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> writes:

> I'm saying that ignoring backwards compatibility (as MAL and Ben have
> proposed) is bad incentive engineering.

I deny this characterisation. PEP 386, by declaring a distinction
between version string comparisons that do or do not conform to a
standard, is *necessarily* backward-incompatible: there will be version
string comparison semantics currently in use that do not meet the
standard.

So if anything, it's PEP 386 that breaks backward compatibility. That's
unavoidable, of course, and I can only trust that the proponents of PEP
386 have a means of dealing with those existing version comparisons that
won't meet the standard.

What I'm proposing is a modification to the specification; I'm not
introducing backward incompatibility, since that's inherent in the
standardisation effort.

-- 
 \        “The flattening of underwear with pleasure is the job of the |
  `\                                  chambermaid.” —hotel, Yugoslavia |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney