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

limit semantic_version to <=2.6 #700

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 29, 2019
Merged

limit semantic_version to <=2.6 #700

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 29, 2019

Conversation

nden
Copy link
Contributor

@nden nden commented Aug 29, 2019

No description provided.

@nden nden modified the milestones: 2.4.1, 2.4.2 Aug 29, 2019
@nden nden merged commit b00df0c into master Aug 29, 2019
@nden nden deleted the limit-semver branch August 29, 2019 18:38
@olebole
Copy link
Contributor

olebole commented Nov 12, 2019

Is there a specific reason for that?
In Debian,we have now now semantic_version 2.8.2,which makes it impossible to create the Debian package here.

@nden
Copy link
Contributor Author

nden commented Nov 13, 2019

Well, in general, it should be possible to relax. The reason was that at the time of the previous asdf release semantic_versioning changed rapidly in a few days - there were four pypi releases in two days. SpecItem is deprecated in these and deprecation warnings raise an error in astropy. So it was a stop-gap measure. And we haven't had time to figure out what replaces SpecItem. I guess another stop-gap measure would be to disallow 3.x releases and ignore the DeprecationWarning.

@olebole
Copy link
Contributor

olebole commented Nov 13, 2019

Since asdf is used by other packages (like sunpy) , it should not restrict the versions of its dependencies by itself too much, otherwise there is the danger of conflicts. And SpecItem is mentioned being private.
Isn't SimpleSpec (or BaseSpec) the right replacement here?

@nden
Copy link
Contributor Author

nden commented Nov 13, 2019

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with the reasons SpecItem was used. I'll take a look. Thanks for the pointer.

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.

2 participants