I think renaming doesn't makes big value, so better to stay with current state.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Ronald Oussoren <ronaldousso...@mac.com> > wrote: >> >> On 22 Oct, 2012, at 20:03, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> What do you think about this? >>> >>> http://bugs.python.org/issue16299 >> >> The cost of changing the build directory is high, and has limited upsides at >> best. Some of the costs: confusing current users, breaking existing >> documentation like books, breaking build systems, incompatibility between >> python versions. > > There is already a lot of incompatibilities between 2 and 3, and even > between 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, so the added value of this change to the > total cost is miserable. Speaking about user confusion - if they won't > find 'build' directory - they'll surely notice __build__ in their > tree. Python 3 toolchains are still fragile, so it won't come for me a > a surprise if Python 3.4 conventions are not the same as in 3.3. > > So, there are two questions: > 1. If you were designing Python from scratch right now now - which > name would you choose `__build__` or `build` for the temporary > directory? > 2. Is the Python 3.x already mature enough to deny any improvements > (considering these are improvements) for the 3.4 version? > >> If the name of the build directory bothers you you can change it by adding >> two lines to ~/.pydistutils.cfg: >> >> [build] >> build-base = __build__ > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig -- Thanks, Andrew Svetlov _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
