On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 17:52, Michael Foord <mfo...@python.org> wrote: > What is the risk of going ahead with a broken system? > > The crux of the matter is that building Python for Windows could break if > someone accidentally commits the wrong line-endings for a few specific files > (Visual Studio project and configuration files - do I understand > correctly?). If this happens, how hard a job would it be to find and fix the > problem?
That wouldn't happen, because we'd have pre-push hooks in place that prevent changesets changing something for the worse from going into the central repository. That places a certain burden on people who run into these issues to fix up their changesets, though. The argument was, I think, that it's not reasonable for Windows developers to have to spend time on fixing up their own changesets when other developers don't have to do so. > The risk *seems* reasonably low, people on non-Windows platforms are > unlikely to touch those files and they are unlikely to be edited by hand, > and if the cost of fixing the problem is low it seems reasonable to migrate > earlier rather than later. IMO the risk is negligible, due to the aformentioned precautions. > Would it help for the PSF to pay someone to do the necessary testing + > coding to ensure the problem is fixed and is there a likely person we could > contract? Matt Mackall, the founder of Mercurial, might be available. Martin Geisler is the person who did most of the work on the eol extension so far, including getting a Windows laptop from his university to try some things, but I'm not sure he's available either. I could ask around, though, if the PSF thinks spending money on this is worthwhile. Cheers, Dirkjan _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
