search

PlasmaPy / PlasmaPy-PLEPs

A repository for PlasmaPy Enhancement Proposals
http://docs.plasmapy.org/
Other
8 stars 6 forks source link

Add PLEP 8 on switching to calendar versioning #39

Closed namurphy closed 1 year ago

namurphy commented 1 year ago

This PR follows up on a discussion in #38 and elsewhere in the plasmapythoniverse about switching from semantic versioning to date-based versioning. There's a discussion of the tradeoffs in #38.

I'm basing the scheme in the first draft on Ubuntu's, which has versions like 22.04 and 22.10, which were the releases from April and October 2022. The year format is concise, and it's more clear with the zero-padded month that it actually represents a month. (I got confused earlier today with pip v21.3, since I thought that the minor version number meant the month when it actually didn't.)

This new PLEP would repeal PLEP 5, but since it's a complete rewrite, I decided on doing a new PLEP so as to make the history more apparent.

Closes #38.

StanczakDominik commented 1 year ago

I'd just like to bring https://github.com/dask/community/issues/100#issuecomment-704468187 to your attention on the zero-padding discussion! The important points:

20.01.01 / 2020.01.01 are valid PEP 440 versions.

Overall, the choice between 0Y/0M/0D vs YY/MM/DD is purely a aesthetic one -- either will work with basically every Python Packaging tool that follows the standards.

I'm weakly in favor of zero-padding, but don't mind much either way.

and then they went ahead and removed the zero-padding in https://github.com/dask/community/issues/249, so I'm now all for going padless.

namurphy commented 1 year ago

I decided against discussing our LTS strategy since we don't have plans to do that in the near future, and I'd rather have a separate PLEP on that which we can do when we decide to do the LTS releases.

Other than that, I think I addressed all suggestions. @rocco8773 — if this looks good to you, please feel free to merge.