On 25 November 2012 03:15, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote: > CCing msysgit. I vaguely remember they had problems with building > Python on Windows. I don't know if it's still an issue. > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote: >> git presently contains one Python extension command, Pete Wycoff's p4 >> importer. If my git-weave code is merged it will acquire another. >> I think we can expect more submissions of Python extensions in the >> future, for two good reasons: >> >> 1. Python has a much richer type ontology than shell; there are many >> things this makes relatively easy that are quite painful in shell. >> >> 2. While Perl shares advantage #1, compared to Python it's a >> maintainability mess - much more difficult to read 6 months later. >> >> On the other hand, >> >> 3. Attitudes in the git dev group seem to be influenced by a >> perception that up-to-date Python versions are not as reliably present >> on our target platforms as Perl is. >> >> 4. Python has the disadvantage that comes with robust growth; you have >> to specify "version x.y or later" as a dependency, mainly because new >> modules keep getting getting folded into the stock Python environment. > > These may apply to other languages as well. Where do we draw a line? > > >> Previous conversation on the list suggests that there has been a tacit >> policy of managing these problems by (a) discouraging (though not entirely >> forbidding) Python extensions, and (b) requiring extension submitters to >> document some dependency on language version. >> >> I think this is suboptimal. By not forbidding the Python language >> entirely, we guarantee having to deal with problems 3 and 4 anyway - >> but by discouraging it, we're buying significant long-term >> maintainability costs. It especially disturbed me to hear of Python >> commands being recoded in C - that is definitely not the right >> direction for reducing expected defect counts, if only because of >> memory-management issues. >> >> We're behind the best-practices curve here. The major Linux >> distributions, which have to deal with almost the same set of >> tradeoffs we do, went to Python for pretty much all glue and >> administration scripts outside /etc a decade ago, and the decision has >> served them well. >> >> That, among other things, means up-to-date versions of Python are >> ubiquitous unless we're looking at Windows - in which case Perl and >> shell actually become much bigger portability problems. Mac OS X >> has kept up to date, too; Lion shipped 2.7.1 and that was a major >> release back at this point. >> >> To be fair, there was a time when being a bit twitchy about Python >> version skew and deployment breadth was justified, but I believe that >> time is now well past us. My basis for believing this is very simple - >> I maintain a lot of Python code for systems programmers with stiff >> portability requirements (things like reposurgeon, coverity-submit, >> freecode-submit, shipper, and the Python tools in gpsd). I know what >> kinds of bug reports I get and what kinds I don't, and in the last >> few years "this breaks on my Python version" has gone from unusual >> to doesn't-happen. >> >> I think my experience with gpsd is particularly instructive. Like >> git, that project has a C core with Python wrappers and extension >> components. Like git, it gets deployed in a lot of odd places by people >> who cannot afford the time to be tolerant about cross-platform >> problems and are quite willing to hit the maintainer with a clue-bat >> when they encounter them. The good news is - they don't have to. >> >> I should also point out that none of Mercurial's problems seem to >> have anything to do with the fact that it's written in Python... >> >> I think we can choose a better policy based on some simple premises. >> >> 1) In 2012, we can specify a "floor" Python version of 2.6 (shipped in >> 2008) and be pretty much guaranteed it will be anywhere we want to >> deploy except Windows. Windows will remain a problem because Python >> isn't part of the stock install, but that's an equal or worse problem >> for shell and Perl - and at least the Python project ships a binary >> installer for Windows. >> >> 2) Python extension commands should test the Python version on startup >> and die loudly but gracefully in the rare case that they don't find >> what they need. >> >> 3) We should be unconditionally be encouraging extensions to move >> from shell and Perl to Python. This would be a clear net gain is >> portability and maintainability. >> >> 4) We should be encouraging C code to move to Python, too. There's >> little gain in portability on this path because modern C has cleaned >> up its act a lot, but the drop in expected bug loads would be well >> worth the porting effort. Segfaults are not your friend, and the x2 to >> x5 drop in line count would do very good things for long-term >> maintainability.
Git for Windows simply ships everything we need to run git - so if a desirable module requires a version of python, we will add that version plus any required modules into the installer. We already have a patch to provide python in the msysgit tree - it would just require polishing up a little. I'm certain this is no problem for the other windows port (cygwin) either. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html