On Jul 3, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
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 can release a 2.6.3 right before the cut-over (well, just about any time between now and August 1st). Should we just plan now for a 2.6.3 on say July 24th, with a release candidate on July 20th?
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.
Agreed. I originally chose code.python.org because I didn't want to be biased (maybe I should have been :). +1 for hg.python.org. I'd prefer to spell out sys.mercurial_revision.
-Barry
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
