RetroSearch Browse

Mon Feb 12 04:14:53 CET 2007 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-February/070944.html

On Monday 12 February 2007 13:57, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 2/11/07, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> > On 2/11/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > > Actually, the regenerating should happen immediately after
> > > commit, as this bumps the revision number of the asdl file.
> > > This means you have to make two commits per AST grammar
> > > change: one to change the grammar, and the other to update
> > > the regenerated file.
> >
> > Is this documented somewhere? It wouldn't hurt if there was a
> > pointer to that documentation right next to the line in
> > Python-ast.c that gets modified by the regeneration. (I've been
> > wondering about this a few times myself.)
>
> Don't think so.  How about this for wording for the file's
> documentation?
>
> /*
>    File automatically generated by %s.
>
>    This module must be committed separately from each AST grammar
> change; the __version__ number is set to the revision number of
> the commit containing the grammar change.
> */

Note that the welease.py script that builds the releases does 
a "touch" on the relevant files to make sure that make gets the 
build right. We had bugs opened at one point because the timestamps 
meant you needed a python interpreter to build python. 

I'm not _too_ stressed if the svn isn't always perfect in this 
regard - the number of people who are checking out svn to build 
their very first python interpreter would be low, I'd think.

Anthony

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-February/070944.html below:

[Python-Dev] Does Python/Python-ast.c need to be checked in?