[core-workflow] Updated draft of PEP 512

[Nick Coghlan]

On 22 January 2016 at 03:21, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> If I remember correctly, the original argument for not going generic is
> there is no guarantee future VCSs will have similar semantics that will fit
> into whatever tuple or dict structure we chose.

Yep, the name of the attribute conveys how to interpret it, while a
generic name means you need some *other* data source to tell you "OK,
up to version X.Y it's a subversion version, up to 3.5 it's a
Mercurial hash, in 3.6+ it's a git hash..."

With the attribute changing names, folks trying to use the VCS info at
least get a really clear indicator when we change version control
systems, even if they're not closely following upstream process
changes.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia