Re: [Python-Dev] Want to co-design and implement a logging module?
Greg Ward firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
On 11 February 2002, Michael Hudson said:
But I believe that 1.5.2 compatibility is still relavent for distutils
I'm still catching up on distutils-sig traffic from the past year, so I don't want to overcommit myself here... but I've been thinking that we (I) should do one last Distutils release that is 1.5.2 compatible, and then we can decide if future Distutils releases will stick to 2.0-compatibility, or are allowed to require the version of Python that they go with.
I;m not sure that idea will get widespread support.
However, please *don't* everyone jump in and start a thread about this now. I'll take it up on distutils-sig when I've caught up.
But I'll wait until you get caught up.
I had a go at implementing a very KISS approach to distutils logging this morning and found what I was doing conflicted horribly with distutils' current practice, so I stopped.
Probably because the Distutils current practice is an ill-thought-out mishmash. That'll have to be fixed first, I suspect. Sorry. ;-(
It was more to do with options processing (the fact that basically speaking all options translate to attributes on some object) than logging. I suspect I could have used Optik more easily...
I'm also not sure how politic it would be to take an axe to the interfaces of the various *util modules.