RetroSearch Browse

Thu Oct 6 17:31:24 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/113888.html

On Oct 06, 2011, at 04:12 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:

>I started to play with virtualenv recently and wondered about the status
>of the similar feature in 3.3 (cpythonv).  The last thread mentioned two
>bugs; one has been fixed since.
>
>Apart from the implicit vs. explicit download of distribute, are there
>design issues to discuss?  Can we do that with a patch on a bug report?
>
>Oh, let’s not forget naming.  We can’t reuse the module name virtualenv
>as it would shadow the third-party module name, and I’m not fond of
>“virtualize”: it brings OS-level virtualization to my mind, not isolated
>Python environments.

Time to hit the hardware store and stock up on bikeshed paint!

I agree we can't use virtualenv, and shouldn't use virtualize.  I'm afraid
that picking something cute might make it harder to discover.  `pythonv` or
`cpythonv` seem like good choices to me.  Maybe the former, so we could
potentially have jythonv, etc.

-Barry

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/113888.html below:

[Python-Dev] Status of the built-in virtualenv functionality in 3.3