On Jan 19, 2010, at 08:09 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'd be surprised if any of the big 3 DVCS developers would actually /want/ their stuff in the stdlib.
If they ask, they'll get told they're motorbike-shedding. "It's better if their users ask". So here I am as a user doing things the 'right' way.
Being in the stdlib has its advantages and disadvantages. I think for rapidly developing technology, the latter can actually outweigh the former.
If it's about being able to do updates, then I think this resolves an old and circular argument. As the SCM implementation would, one would expect, to be able to update itself. Side benefits are that it can update everything else along with it at the same time. User Apps, Packages, whatever. It's even better having SCM in an Industrial/Scientific environment. Here's an example: - a machine breaks.. (I mean the software for/in it) - you fix the code, maybe on the spot - you commit and push back to the repository - your code gets checked in and run through the testbot and then you get blamed and have to do the whole thing again properly with a test case. Oh well.. Well anyway, whatever you guys might say, that's a whole lot more efficient than running back to the development machine and going through some obscure build and test and publish process to do a fix on a production machine. Point : The fact that SCMs are two way is great in a production environment. No packaging solution can come close. So why not have python SCMs included as batteries in python.. All these arguments I can take off to the stdlib list when I get the chance.. David