Skip to content

Conversation

@AntoinePrv
Copy link

@AntoinePrv AntoinePrv commented Jul 22, 2023

📄 Rendered version

We recommend to remove * from valid Version characters, due to confusing intersection with
VersionSpec glob expressions.
We suggest different possibilities on how the character could be reinterpreted in VersionSpec
with an analysis on backward compatibility.

Copy link
Contributor

@baszalmstra baszalmstra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice! Thanks for this @AntoinePrv ! 👍 🥇

It might also be worth mentioning that this behavior has already partially been deprecated in the use of VersionSpec in conda as mentioned here:

 log.warning(
    "Using .* with relational operator is superfluous and deprecated "
    "and will be removed in a future version of conda. Your spec was "
    "{}, but conda is ignoring the .* and treating it as {}".format(
        vo_str, vo_str[:-2]
    )
)

cep-xx.md Outdated
Comment on lines 120 to 122
This is the most delicate part to handle since ``>1.7*`` is frequently use to mean greater than the
``1.7`` infimum (could also be writen as ``=1.7|>=1.7``, that is, mathching some versions smaller
than ``1.7.0``, such as ``1.7alpha``).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Existing cases here are often caused by someone accidentally using =>1.7* in a recipe instead of >=1.7*. I vote we should interpret it as what is most likely intended here (e.g. >=1.7*).

Copy link
Contributor

@jaimergp jaimergp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for this interesting write up! I am in agreement with the spirit of the changes.

I found a typo here and there, and I'd also like to highlight the capitalization standards for conda and conda-forge:

@AntoinePrv AntoinePrv requested a review from jaimergp August 7, 2023 08:31
@AntoinePrv
Copy link
Author

Hi all,

How can I move this forward? Is there a meeting I should attend to champion this?

@jaimergp
Copy link
Contributor

Hey, I'm thinking of incorporating this research as a reference for the rationale in #132 and #82, in case you want to take a look. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants