> I don't understand all the worry about sys.subversion. It's not like > it's useful to anybody else than us, and I think it should have been > named sys._subversion instead. There's no point in making API-like > promises about which DVCS, bug tracker or documentation toolset we use > for our workflow. I read “subversion” as “sub-piece of information about version”, not the name of a VCS, so I have no problem with its continuing existence under Mercurial (it’s in PEP 385). Regards
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4