Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

WIP: Add sdist format specification and metadata field (PEP 643) #785

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jan 1, 2021
Merged

WIP: Add sdist format specification and metadata field (PEP 643) #785

merged 7 commits into from
Jan 1, 2021

Conversation

pfmoore
Copy link
Member

@pfmoore pfmoore commented Oct 31, 2020

No description provided.

@@ -4,10 +4,6 @@
Core metadata specifications
============================

The current core metadata file format, version 2.1, is specified in :pep:`566`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Old PEP removed but no mention of a new PEP 643? Is this intentional?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, because PEP 643 does not specify the whole format, just the addition. I didn't think it made sense to say "Version 2.1 was specified in 566, which also made this document canonical, then 643 updated it to 2.2" with the result that the paragraph becomes an extended audit trail of all the PEPs that change the spec.

IMO, the whole point of making this document canonical is that we don't need to link back to the PEPs. 2.1 linking back to 566 was OK, as that was the version that changed the canonical source of the spec. But now we've moved to the next version, I think it's time to drop the (essentially historical, now) note.

pfmoore and others added 3 commits November 1, 2020 20:51
Co-authored-by: Sviatoslav Sydorenko <wk.cvs.github@sydorenko.org.ua>
1. Remove the whitelist of fields allowed to be dynamic.
2. Allow Dynamic outside of source distributions.
@eduardsmith
Copy link

Nice

Copy link
Member

@sbidoul sbidoul left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@pfmoore was this ready to be merged ?

@pfmoore
Copy link
Member Author

pfmoore commented Jan 1, 2021

@sbidoul Drat, yes. Thanks for the reminder, I don't know how I forgot this 🙁

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.

5 participants