Code review comment for lp:~maxb/udd/environment-setup

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:41:20 -0000, Max Bowsher <email address hidden> wrote:
> > No, you're also referring (well, your change does), to bzrlib and the
> > plugins which are specific to the jubany deployment.
>
> OK, you're right there, those are sort-of included too. But uppermost
> in my mind was the way that the scripts can't even find the path to
> their own udd.* library code without outside assistance, which feels
> like the biggest illustrator of the bug to me.

Agreed on that point. I think that fixing that problem would be good,
it's the other parts that I find contentious. My apologies for not
noticing this distinction earlier.

> I think, given the level of unexpected controversy that has ensued from this branch, I might split it up into several:
>
> 1) bin/_path.py *only* dealing with adding the udd.* modules to the path

+1 to that.

> 2) bzrlib and distro-info installed via a "pylib" directory, replacing current methods

I'm +0 on that.

> 3) Remove redundant if __name__ == '__main__'

+0 too.

> 4) BZR_PLUGIN_PATH, BZR_EMAIL, LANG

I'm still not sure about this.

You say that import-package is jubany-specific, which I somewhat agree
with (it's certainly specific to the package importer, but if we want a
staging instance then there will be two machines involved for just
that.) Splitting it from the rest of the udd tree would help re-inforce
that.

Given that nothing else uses it I wouldn't block changing this, and
setting BZR_EMAIL and LANG are fine in any case I think¸ I just think
there are better ways of handling BZR_PLUGIN_PATH and PYTHONPATH for
external projects.

Thanks,

James