On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 at 20:24 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 January 2016 at 03:21, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote:
> > If I remember correctly, the original argument for not going generic is
> > there is no guarantee future VCSs will have similar semantics that will
> fit
> > into whatever tuple or dict structure we chose.
>
> Yep, the name of the attribute conveys how to interpret it, while a
> generic name means you need some *other* data source to tell you "OK,
> up to version X.Y it's a subversion version, up to 3.5 it's a
> Mercurial hash, in 3.6+ it's a git hash..."
>
> With the attribute changing names, folks trying to use the VCS info at
> least get a really clear indicator when we change version control
> systems, even if they're not closely following upstream process
> changes.
>
Actually, do people find the sys._mercurial attribute useful? I just want
to double-check that this is worth continually going through this every few
years when we change VCSs to swap in a new attribute.
I will definitely update the PEP to set sys._mercurial to `('CPython', '',
'')` (the attribute isn't even documented so there's no real deprecation to
do).
_______________________________________________
core-workflow mailing list
core-workflow@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow
This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct:
https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
