[Python-Dev] Mercurial Schedule

["Martin v. Löwis"]

>> 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