<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 14:00, "Martin v. Löwis" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin@v.loewis.de">martin@v.loewis.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> Should we consider adding a sys.revision attribute and begin the<br>
> deprecation of sys.subversion?<br>
<br>
</div>I wouldn't mind killing sys.subversion "right away" (i.e. in trunk<br>
and 3k - obviously it has to stay in 2.6 and 3.1, and all the older<br>
branches).<br>
<br>
I'm -1 on calling it "sys.revision", as this makes it difficult to<br>
tell what the actual versioning system was, and hence how the<br>
data should be interpreted. It will already be a problem for 2.6,<br>
when 2.6.3 will currently have a sys.subversion[2] of 'dd3ebf81af43',<br>
which will surely crash existing applications.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure what the motivation for a sys.revision is; it's<br>
probably similar to the desire of calling the machine <a href="http://code.python.org" target="_blank">code.python.org</a><br>
(instead of <a href="http://hg.python.org" target="_blank">hg.python.org</a>). It gives the illusion of being agnostic<br>
of the actual RCS being used. However, this is a complete illusion:<br>
anybody using it (either <a href="http://code.python.org" target="_blank">code.python.org</a>, or sys.revision), *cannot*<br>
be agnostic of the specific technology.</blockquote><div><br>We could add another value in the tuple that specifies the VCS: ('CPython', 'branches/release25-maint', '61464', 'svn'). I agree that VCSs are not universally the same, but the concept of a revision is universal.<br>
<br>-Brett<br></div></div>