RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jul 4 00:03:09 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090372.html

On Jul 3, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

> I'm -1 on calling it "sys.revision", as this makes it difficult to
> tell what the actual versioning system was, and hence how the
> data should be interpreted. It will already be a problem for 2.6,
> when 2.6.3 will currently have a sys.subversion[2] of 'dd3ebf81af43',
> which will surely crash existing applications.

I can release a 2.6.3 right before the cut-over (well, just about any  
time between now and August 1st).  Should we just plan now for a 2.6.3  
on say July 24th, with a release candidate on July 20th?

> I'm not sure what the motivation for a sys.revision is; it's
> probably similar to the desire of calling the machine code.python.org
> (instead of hg.python.org). It gives the illusion of being agnostic
> of the actual RCS being used. However, this is a complete illusion:
> anybody using it (either code.python.org, or sys.revision), *cannot*
> be agnostic of the specific technology.

Agreed.  I originally chose code.python.org because I didn't want to  
be biased (maybe I should have been :).   +1 for hg.python.org.  I'd  
prefer to spell out sys.mercurial_revision.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20090703/c88bc27b/attachment.pgp>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090372.html below:

[Python-Dev] Mercurial migration: progress report (PEP 385)