issue_comments: 1020681788

This data as json

html_url issue_url id node_id user created_at updated_at author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6176#issuecomment-1020681788 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6176 1020681788 IC_kwDOAMm_X8481l48 11656932 2022-01-25T00:19:49Z 2022-01-25T01:27:00Z CONTRIBUTOR

@jrbourbeau is this something dask has thought about?

Thanks for the ping @Illviljan. Zero-padding dates did come up in the Dask calver discussion starting here https://github.com/dask/community/issues/100#issuecomment-704445214. In a nutshell, there was a slight preference towards using zero-padding (i.e. 2022.01.0 instead of 2022.1.0) because the calendar nature of the version is more explicit and string sorting and full-fledged package sorting (like one would do with packaging.version) give the same result.

As pointed out https://github.com/dask/community/issues/100#issuecomment-704468187 either convention is valid from a Python packaging perspective. FWIW I'm not aware of any issues that have come up from Dask using a zero-padded version number. The main thing that comes to mind is when checking out git tags for a specific release (e.g. git checkout 2021.04.0 and git checkout 2021.4.0 are not equivalent). That said, to my knowledge, this hasn't been an issue in practice.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not advocating for one convention over the other -- just providing context around Dask's decision

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   1108564253