On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Eric Smith <e...@trueblade.com> wrote: > Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> Eric Smith <eric <at> trueblade.com> writes: >>> >>> Last I saw Antoine had written a script that might do what we want, but >>> hadn't been thoroughly tested. Now I've seen a few checkins for files that >>> have been run through the script. >> >> As far as I'm concerned, it was a case of eating my own dog food: running >> the >> script over a couple of files I'm interested in (_ssl.c, _fileio.c). I >> believe >> Victor processed posixmodule.c for the same reasons. >> >>> What gives? And why do this so close to 2.7? I don't think it will cause >>> any problems, but it's hard to review commits to ensure they have no changes >>> when there's a rush of large commits near a release. >> >> Well, however soon or late we do this, good luck reviewing multi-thousand >> line >> commits to check no mistake sneaked in :) > > That's my point. Since it's basically unreviewable, is it smart to do it > during a beta?
Hello folks - I don't think these modifications are that "unreviewable": the generated binaries have to be exactly the same with the untabified files don't they? So is a matter of stashing the binaries, applying the patches, rebuild and check to see if the binaries match. Any possible script defects undetected by this would be only (C code) indentation, which could be fixed later. Python 2.7 is in beta, but not applying such a fix now would probably mean that python 2.x would forever remain with the mixed tabs, since it would make much less sense for such a change in a minor revision (although I'd favor it even there). js -><- > > I grant you that it's a largely a mechanized change (except for the "a > posteriori manual intervention" part), but still. > > Eric. _______________________________________________ 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
