On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:40:45AM -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote: > j...@keeping.me.uk wrote on Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:41 +0000: >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:43:04PM -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote: >> > Can you give me some hints about the byte/unicode string issues >> > in git-p4.py? There's really only one place that does: >> > >> > p4 = subprocess.Popen("p4 -G ...") >> > marshal.load(p4.stdout) >> > >> > If that's the only issue, this might not be too paniful. >> >> The problem is that what gets loaded there is a dictionary (encoded by >> p4) that maps byte strings to byte strings, so all of the accesses to >> that dictionary need to either: >> >> 1) explicitly call encode() on a string constant >> or 2) use a byte string constant with a "b" prefix >> >> Or we could re-write the dictionary once, which handles the keys... but >> some of the values are also used as strings and we can't handle that as >> a one-off conversion since in other places we really do want the byte >> string (think content of binary files). >> >> Basically a thorough audit of all access to variables that come from p4 >> would be needed, with explicit decode()s for authors, dates, etc. > > Your auto-conversion snippet in the follow-up mail would work > fine for most keys and values. A few perforce docs and some > playing around convince me that it is mostly utf-8, except for > file data for particular types. > > I'd still rather handle each command separately, and think about > the conversions, to do it right in the long run.
I sent that on the assumption that the same key would have similar semantics wherever its used, but I don't use git-p4 or know much about perforce. It would be interesting to know whether there is any likelihood of p4 gaining a Python 3 output mode (since the documentation currently say not to use "p4 -G" with Python 3). If it does then I would assume that it will make a sensible choice about unicode/bytes such that the existing git-p4 would Just Work with only a small change to the invocation of p4 to add the new argument. >> > I hesitated to take Sebastian's changes due to the huge number of >> > print() lines, but maybe a 2to3 approach would make that aspect >> > of python3 support not too onerous. >> >> I think we'd want to change to print() eventually and having a single >> codebase for 2 and 3 would be nicer for development, but I think we need >> to be able to say "no one is using Python 2.5 or earlier" before we can >> do that and I'm not sure we're there yet. From where we are at the >> moment I think 2to3 is a good answer, particularly where we're already >> using distutils to generate a release image. > > Agreed. The 2to3 diff is large but straightforward. But these > p4 -G interface errors require a lot of thought and work. I'm > not too eager to work on this yet. Fair enough. As I don't use git-p4, it's not something I intend to tackle either (given the scale of the changes involved). Given the minimal scope of the changes needed for everything else, I sent this series wondering whether it's sensible to move forward on the basis of "Python scripts except git-p4 work with Python 3. You must use Python 2 if you want to use git-p4". John -- 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