-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 980
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
Conversation
@@ -4,10 +4,6 @@ | |||
Core metadata specifications | |||
============================ | |||
|
|||
The current core metadata file format, version 2.1, is specified in :pep:`566`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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.
Nice |
There was a problem hiding this 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 ?
@sbidoul Drat, yes. Thanks for the reminder, I don't know how I forgot this 🙁 |
No description provided.