On 28 July 2017 at 13:30, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 July 2017 at 01:32, Jason R. Coombs <jar...@jaraco.com> wrote: >> I’d like feedback, in either ticket, about whether this change is worth the >> trouble and if so if there are any ways to mitigate the risks of introducing >> such a change. > > The one way I can see of doing this with a graceful transition period > would be to implement it like this: > > 1. Switch to raw parsing with no interpolation as the default > 2. Check the result for any field values containing either "%(<text>)s" or > "%%" > 3. If you find any, print a suitable deprecation warning and parse it > again with interpolation enabled
Clarifying to add: I think this is a worthwhile change, as it helps to ensure that the static config files actually *are* static, and hence less dependent on being read specifically with Python's configparser library. That's a boon for interoperability, even if it means that folks that genuinely want interpolation will need to switch to a "setup.cfg.in" style approach where they use the templating tool of their choice to read in the input file, substitute values, and then write out a completely static setup.cfg file. Cheers, NIck. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
