Hi Dave, On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:46 -0700, David Borowitz wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 06:57, Jelmer Vernooij <[email protected]> > wrote: > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:19 -0700, David Borowitz wrote: > 3 seems like the best solution if it doesn't make things too > much > slower. Of course, we could give it semantics similar to what > namedtuple > would give us.
> I don't mind much either way. It sounds like benchmark results will be > the deciding factor. Yeah. I also think it's important whatever we do will keep working with older versions of Python. I'm quite surprised the namedtuple approach is faster than slotted objects. > > In my ideal world we would get rid of Tree.entries() and > change > > index.commit_tree() to use the standard format, but I don't > have a > > sense of how widely either of those are used. Thoughts on > how to > > proceed? > > Changing commit_tree() is probably possible as it's not very > heavily > used. Removing Tree.entries() is not possible I think, at > least not > without deprecating it first. > +1 to officially deprecating it. I thought it was kind of unofficially > deprecated already. (There's two functions that are almost identical, > one is implemented in terms of the other, and it's only for > "historical reasons"--that's pretty much what a deprecated function > looks like :) It looks like we didn't actually have a "items" method though. I'm adding one now. Cheers, Jelmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
