Barry Warsaw wrote: > 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 fine with that plan - but the original problem remains. We will surely release 2.6.4 at some point, and it will have a different version identification (based on hg rev ids). So those existing applications (which are probably few) will then crash for 2.6.4, unless we continue maintaining 2.6 in subversion, or just arrange to fake sys.subversion somehow (e.g. freezing it on the last subversion revision - which might still break applications that insist on accessing the revision mentioned - not sure whether such applications actually exist). Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
