On 22 January 2016 at 03:21, Brett Cannon <br...@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 | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
