Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (
-   Python (
-   -   Re: Possible fix for Bug 494589 - os.path.expandvars bug (

Steve Holden 07-02-2003 03:56 AM

Re: Possible fix for Bug 494589 - os.path.expandvars bug
"Behrang Dadsetan" <> wrote ...

> For the second problem - as of now a real bug whatever we decide, I
> wrote within this comment (hereafter) a new expandvars version which
> fits the docstring documentation of and the comments of
> Sorry you will be getting no patch from me at the moment
> since sourceforge's anonymous CVS access does not like me.


If you can figure out everything you wrote about, it can't be *that* hard to
create a sourceforge account ;-).

Steve Holden
Python Web Programming

Behrang Dadsetan 07-02-2003 09:42 PM

Re: Possible fix for Bug 494589 - os.path.expandvars bug
Skip Montanaro wrote:

> Behrang> I there a way for me to get a SSH CVS access?
> Behrang> Or will someone make/submit the patch for me?
>Martin v. Löwis is making nightly snapshots of the CVS tree:
>With that, you could create a "good enough" context diff and submit a patch
>on Sourceforge.

Thanks Skip, already saw that trick.. but I actually first need some
advice from someone whether I should just fix the Lib/ and
Lib/ with my version (to fit their actual docstring
documentation and comments) or whether I should rather patch them to
become just like Lib/ so that they fit the "official"
( and act the
same as the rest of the implementations.

a)If I fix the and with my version:
The developpers reading the docstring/comments from the source code
will be happy. Possibly update the main Library Reference documentation
on that point explaining a special behaviour of these two
implementations. Would have the benefit to theoricaly not break any code
and instead fixing magicly some...
b)If I copy's implementation over the and implementations:
The dos and nt implementations would fit the official documentation
but I might break some existing code of fellow python developpers
c)If I copy my implementation to all underlying platform implementations
Could be possible if everyone loves the functionality promised by
the dospath docstring, I would need to consult some other platform
specialists to see how to adapt their code and then update the main
documentation site.

I guess b would be the most reasonable to do since the promises of
dospath.expandvars docstring never actually delivered what it sayed they
would and I feel we need a standard for os.path.expandvars behaviour
with breaking the minimum of existing code.

This need for advice was the other main reason I did not even risk
myself to a patch. If you (knowing well better the procedures and
attitudes of python implementors) still believe I would only get advice
submitting patches, do you think it is alright submitting two/three
different ones? I actually hoped we could first discuss what we want to
do. Also the reason why I wrote that I was awaited the BDFL to pronounce
a decision. What would be the procedure to get him taking a decision on
this? Do I need someone to bring up the question in python-dev? (my mail
last week to python-dev got ignored or automaticly classified as spam...
not sure ;-) )


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.