Code review comment for lp://staging/~gary/launchpad/py25-script

On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

> Review: Approve
> Thanks for getting the ball rolling Gary!
>
> Just a few questions and comments, but...
>
> review approve
> status approve

Thanks! It is merged.

>
> === modified file 'cronscripts/allocate-revision-karma.py'
> --- cronscripts/allocate-revision-karma.py 2009-06-24 20:52:01 +0000
> +++ cronscripts/allocate-revision-karma.py 2009-10-12 16:15:32 +0000
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -#!/usr/bin/python2.4
>> +#!/usr/bin/python2.5
>> #
>> # Copyright 2009 Canonical Ltd. This software is licensed under the
>> # GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (see the file LICENSE).
>
> Are there any plans to buildout-ify these scripts? It would be so
> much nicer
> than hardcoding the shebang lines.

I think it is at the "glimmer in my eye" stage. Certainly no
farther. I agree that would be nice for many reasons (like, getting
rid of _pythonpath.py).

> === modified file 'scripts/branch-rewrite.py'
> --- scripts/branch-rewrite.py 2009-07-24 07:08:33 +0000
> +++ scripts/branch-rewrite.py 2009-10-12 16:15:32 +0000
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -#!/usr/bin/python2.4 -u
>> +#!/usr/bin/python2.5 -u
>> #
>> # Copyright 2009 Canonical Ltd. This software is licensed under the
>> # GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (see the file LICENSE).
>
> How odd that this one is using -u. Is it significant and if so, why
> don't all
> our scripts use -u?

I don't know. That's a question for someone else--codehosting, I
assume. I suspect -u is important here for some codehosting must-not-
have-buffering use case; enabling it everywhere sounds like a pain to
me.

> === modified file 'scripts/ftpmaster-tools/_syncorigins.py'
> --- scripts/ftpmaster-tools/_syncorigins.py 2009-07-23 02:33:14 +0000
> +++ scripts/ftpmaster-tools/_syncorigins.py 2009-10-12 16:15:32 +0000
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -#!/usr/bin/env python2.4
>> +#!/usr/bin/env python2.5
>> #
>> # Copyright 2009 Canonical Ltd. This software is licensed under the
>> # GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (see the file LICENSE).
>
> Yet another odd man out. Do things break horribly if we make this
> consistent
> with the other scripts?

Probably not.

I wonder which spelling would be preferred.

I think the two later questions can be addressed when we buildout-ify.

Thank you

Gary