Carl Meyer <c...@dirtcircle.com> added the comment: On 07/11/2011 09:17 AM, Michael Mulich wrote: > * Cases 2, 3, 5 and 6 are strongly related. I'd suggest you condense them > into a single use case. I agree with case 2 and 6 most, but have questions: > ** Why wouldn't one simply use a virtualenv?
I don't know. I don't consider case 3 useful, because I don't consider "I don't want to use a virtualenv" (without some clearer technical justification) to be a prejudice the develop feature needs to support; especially if supporting it essentially means re-implementing a less-capable version of virtualenv within the develop command. > -- Case 5 touches on this topic, but if we are installing in-place, who cares > if can place a development package in the global site-packages directory? Several of these stories make the assumption that even the "in-place" installation will require placing a file in the installation location (a .pth file, if we follow the current setuptools implementation strategy). I think this is probably true, given the requirements in case 6 (which I agree with). So if you want an in-place install that's globally accessible, you'd need write access to global site-packages. > ** After the package has been installed in-place (using the develop command), > how does one identify it as an in development project (or in development > mode)? -- Case 3 and 6 touch on this topic (case 3 is a little vague at this > time), but doesn't explain what type of action is intended. So if we install > in-place (aka, develop), how does the python interpreter find the package? > Are we using PYTHONPATH at this point (which would be contradict a > requirement in case 6)? These use cases (probably intentionally) don't touch on specific implementation strategies, but as I mentioned there's an implicit assumption that a .pth file is the most likely strategy. > * Case 4 is a be unclear. Is Carl, the actor, pulling unreleased remote > changes (hg pull --update) for these mercurial server plugins then running > the develop command on them? Right, although the requirement for that story is that you don't have to re-run the develop command after every pull; if you develop-install it once, you can simply pull more code changes in and they'll immediately be available. I've added a line to that story to make it more clear. > * Case 1 is good and very clear, but I'd consider it a feature rather than > required. Perhaps it should not be focused on first (priority). Thoughts? I agree that's a second-level feature (or, perhaps more accurately, a bug in the existing setuptools feature that I was hoping could be addressed in the d2 version), not a primary requirement. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8668> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
