[Python-Dev] Want to co-design and implement a logging module?

[Michael Hudson]

Greg Ward <gward@python.net> writes:

> On 11 February 2002, Michael Hudson said:
> > But I believe that 1.5.2 compatibility is still relavent for
> > distutils
> 
> I'm still catching up on distutils-sig traffic from the past year, so I
> don't want to overcommit myself here... but I've been thinking that we
> (I) should do one last Distutils release that is 1.5.2 compatible, and
> then we can decide if future Distutils releases will stick to
> 2.0-compatibility, or are allowed to require the version of Python that
> they go with.

I;m not sure that idea will get widespread support.

> However, please *don't* everyone jump in and start a thread about this
> now.  I'll take it up on distutils-sig when I've caught up.

But I'll wait until you get caught up.

> > I had a go at implementing a very KISS approach to distutils logging
> > this morning and found what I was doing conflicted horribly with
> > distutils' current practice, so I stopped.
> 
> Probably because the Distutils current practice is an ill-thought-out
> mishmash.  That'll have to be fixed first, I suspect.  Sorry.  ;-(

It was more to do with options processing (the fact that basically
speaking all options translate to attributes on some object) than
logging.  I suspect I could have used Optik more easily...

I'm also not sure how politic it would be to take an axe to the
interfaces of the various *util modules.

Cheers,
M.

-- 
  You sound surprised.  We're talking about a government department
  here - they have procedures, not intelligence.
                                            -- Ben Hutchings, cam.misc