Vinay Sajip <[email protected]> added the comment:
I have no objection in principle to supporting additional shells, but do have
the following comments/questions:
1. Georg feels that this is a new feature he doesn't want to add to 3.3. IMO we
have to respect his judgement as RM, no matter how trivial the change might
seem. It's more about the discipline of the process than it is about any one
specific change.
2. Where do we draw the line in terms of support for ("arbitrary") shells? Each
activation script will potentially need maintenance into the future. It was
originally envisaged that the stdlib code would add minimal support for
activation scripts and that third-party tools would add support for additional
shells and other value-adding features. The venv API design was intended to
facilitate usage by third-party code.
----------
versions: +Python 3.4 -Python 3.3
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue15417>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
