[Python-Dev] Mercurial Schedule (original) (raw)

"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Thu Nov 18 20:33:40 CET 2010

Therefore, I'm concerned that I will have to work out all the details on my own, just so that I can produce the b2 binaries (says); this is not something I look forward to. How much does the binary build process really depend on version control? I.e., what would be stopping you from making a binary from an archive made with e.g. "svn export"? (I'm really asking because I don't know.)

The build process currently compiles a program (make_buildinfo), which in turn finds the subversion installation, and runs subwcrev if found. If no .svn folder is found, it falls back to the version information in the export.

I would have to try out what exactly will happen when I try to build the current hg conversion result on Windows, but chances are that the resulting interpreter will crash because the string manipulation fails to find the right substrings.

Well, put some butter to the fish: how many volunteers would you deem sufficient, and which specific tasks are uncared for in the infrastructure? I can only speak for myself, but I am prepared to put in my time.

As a starting point, I'd like to see a complete, current conversion result, using as many repositories as planned, and including as many branches into each repository as planned (rather than the giant cpython repository which we have now - unless the plan now is that there will be a single giant repository).

Then the existing patches to the build identification should be applied, and the repositories should be opened for (test) commits.

Then people could start identifying problems.

As a parallel activity, I'd also ask that the PEP is finished, or atleast put into a form where the authors consider it complete (again so that people could start identifying issues, and determine where the PEP differs from reality - currently most obviously in the branching approach).

Regards, Martin

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list