On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:44:09PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:28 AM, Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
> > Le 03/02/14 20:53, Tres Seaver a écrit :
> >> I wish you hadn't pushed that -- some of these changes are definitely 
> >> inappropriate on the 3.10 branch (adding an Acquisition dependency
> >> is definitely wrong).
> >
> > Acquisition is added as a test dependency. Any hint how to replicate
> > the bug without acquisition is welcome.
> Define a subclass of Persistent which emulates what Acquisition does, e.g.:
>   from persistent import Persistent
>   class Foo(Persistent):
>       @property
>       def _p_jar(self): # or whatever attribute trggers
>           return object()

What if full replication requires a C extension module?

(I hope that's not true and that it is possible to reproduce the bug
using some fakes, but I haven't spent the time investigating this.)

> > Which other change is inappropriate ?
> Adding MANIFEST.in on a release branch seems wrong to me (I don't like
> them anyway, and we *definitely* don't want to encourage
> instsall-from-a-github-generated-tarball on a release branch).

That's like objecting if someone adds a .gitignore to a release branch.
Or a .travis.yml.  It's not code, it's metadata.

(I never liked setuptool's magic "let me query git to see what source
files you have, but not by default, oh no, instead let's assume
everybody has installed the non-standard plugin into their system
Pythons and then let's silently produce broken tarballs if they haven't,
because obviously implicit is better than explicit, and when there's
temptation the right thing is to guess" behavior anyway, and we
*definitely* don't want broken sdists on PyPI.)

Marius Gedminas
        "A child of 5 could understand this!  Fetch me a child of 5."

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to