On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 06.09.2014 09:19, Kim Gräsman wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This worked out really well for us. We use the Apache SVN server on
>> Windows, so we never managed to use the SVN Python modules (my
>> coworker who did most of this work never managed to find a
>> Windows-compatible distribution for Python 3.x.)
>>
>> Instead, we inspected the transaction file and parsed it manually. I
>> don't generally like this, but a pure-Python solution was far
>> preferable to us at this stage.
>
> Yikes. I really do not recommend this; the APIs and bindings are fare
> more stable and forward-compatible than a home-grown parser.
>
> Indeed, our Python bindings do not work with Python 3, as far as I'm
> aware, but you can have both Python 3 and Python 2.7 installed at the
> same time. You could also write your hook script in Perl or Ruby, the
> bindings are functionally equivalent.
I understand your concern, and we'll revisit this for sure when it
breaks the first time. For now, I'll booby-trap the parser so it
breaks harder as soon as it finds something it doesn't understand.
I don't have bandwidth at the moment to help out, but making the
bindings Python 2/3-compatible, packaging them so that they are
pip-installable and publishing them on PyPI would really help
deployability here.
We're working hard to streamline our technology stack and we're not
going to let Python 2, Perl or Ruby in the door.
Thanks for all your help!
- Kim
Received on 2014-09-06 13:38:49 CEST