On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 14:00, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > Should we consider adding a sys.revision attribute and begin the
> > deprecation of sys.subversion?
>
> I wouldn't mind killing sys.subversion "right away" (i.e. in trunk
> and 3k - obviously it has to stay in 2.6 and 3.1, and all the older
> branches).
>
> I'm -1 on calling it "sys.revision", as this makes it difficult to
> tell what the actual versioning system was, and hence how the
> data should be interpreted. It will already be a problem for 2.6,
> when 2.6.3 will currently have a sys.subversion[2] of 'dd3ebf81af43',
> which will surely crash existing applications.
>
> I'm not sure what the motivation for a sys.revision is; it's
> probably similar to the desire of calling the machine code.python.org
> (instead of hg.python.org). It gives the illusion of being agnostic
> of the actual RCS being used. However, this is a complete illusion:
> anybody using it (either code.python.org, or sys.revision), *cannot*
> be agnostic of the specific technology.
We could add another value in the tuple that specifies the VCS: ('CPython',
'branches/release25-maint', '61464', 'svn'). I agree that VCSs are not
universally the same, but the concept of a revision is universal.
-Brett
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
