> Feel free to do that. I've used up all my open source time for today,
sorry.
Would love to do that, but the list you are mentioning " virtualenv-users"
doesn't seem to exist. At least google group only finds "virtualenv-api
users" and it's invitation only
Jakub Bocheński
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 September 2017 at 19:55, Jakub Bocheński <kuba.bochen...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think keeping the discussion in one place might save everybody's time.
> > It's cool if you prefer mailing list to PR/issue thread but at least
> linking
> > the discussion there would go a long way.
>
> Feel free to do that. I've used up all my open source time for today,
> sorry.
>
> >> Or would you have been happy if I'd
> > added a one-word "noted" comment to the issue and left it at that?
> > (Which would probably be about the same effort as many of the "me too"
> > comments cost their authors).
> >
> > No. But if you quickly explained why see the value/effort ratio is low
> here
> > that would be fine.
>
> If I could have done that quickly, I would have.
>
> > Now: on the actual issue.
> > This is not some random bash setting. Setting it on is bash best
> practice --
> > don't take my word for it just google it.
>
> No need. See below.
>
> >> The use
> > of the "${PS1:-}" construct (again, sorry if I got that wrong) may not
> > be supported on all of those - so we risk breaking the scripts for
> > some of our users in order to make them work for users who can easily
> > enough switch off the undeclared variable setting.
> >
> > I understand the concern, but it's not as bad as you think.
> > The ${PS1:-} construct is not a bash extension. It's in the POSIX
> standard
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
> utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_06_02
> > Any POSIX-compatibile shell will accept this (which is basically any
> shell
> > in use).
>
> I can't comment on whether this is true. As I said, I'm not a Unix
> user, and more specifically I have no feel for what's common Unix
> practice (at my work, a major proportion of the servers I see use RHEL
> 5, which as I understand it is ancient, and some use Solaris and AIX,
> with shells whose vintage I don't know, but they *certainly* aren't
> bash). Luckily for me, I don't need to use Python on those servers...
>
> Let me just be 100% clear here. I will not personally commit this
> change. It is not in my area of expertise, and I'm not willing to be
> browbeaten into doing so just because people keep telling me it's
> fine. We have PyPA members who *are* Unix users, and whose judgement I
> will trust on this. But they are very busy with other issues, so they
> haven't had the time to look at this ticket. Sorry, but that's the
> nature of volunteer-run open source. In the meantime, I've tried to
> help give some perspective, by explaining the situation. I could have
> just ignored the issue as not in my area of expertise (and indeed
> that's what I did for some time). But I thought people might
> appreciate at least getting a summary of the position. Maybe I was
> wrong - you certainly don't seem pleased that I bothered.
>
> Repeating your comment from above:
>
> > No. But if you quickly explained why see the value/effort ratio is low
> here
> > that would be fine.
>
> Sure doesn't feel like you think it's "fine" that I've spent a number
> of hours on this for you.
>
> I'm done with this issue. Sorry you're not happy.
> Paul
>
