docutils-develop

[Docutils-develop] tiny patch for optik.py

[Ollie R. <ol...@ru...>]

Hi,

After a pretty hectic end of the week and weekend, I just got back 
to doing a little work on the DocBook writer I've been working on.  
I'm hoping to check-in a somewhat functional version into the 
sandbox shortly, but when I went to use the new "choice" type
from "optik.py" I found a little bug.

Below is a patch for this.

Related to this, I didn't see any guidelines in the project policies
regarding 'new developer' procedures. Without the go ahead, I didn't
think I should just commit changes to the main repository, but
sending this a patch seems likes it makes more work for someone
else, considering how little it is.

-Ollie

Index: optik.py
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/docutils/docutils/docutils/optik.py,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -w -u -u -r1.4 optik.py
--- optik.py    20 Jun 2002 03:56:59 -0000      1.4
+++ optik.py    24 Jun 2002 01:24:31 -0000
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
import sys
import os
import types
-from types import TupleType, DictType
+from types import TupleType, DictType, ListType
from distutils.fancy_getopt import wrap_text
    

Re: [Docutils-develop] tiny patch for optik.py

[David G. <go...@us...>]

Ollie Rutherfurd wrote:
> After a pretty hectic end of the week and weekend, I just got back
> to doing a little work on the DocBook writer I've been working on.
> I'm hoping to check-in a somewhat functional version into the
> sandbox shortly,

Great!  I look forward to it, thanks!

> but when I went to use the new "choice" type from "optik.py" I found
> a little bug.
> 
> Below is a patch for this.

Please go ahead and check it in.  I'll add some text to the project
policies clarifying checkins.  In this case, it will be something like,

    For bugs or omissions that have an obvious fix and can't possibly
    mess up anything else, go right ahead and check it in directly.

Somewhere else, there will be:

    The occasional mistake is easy to fix.  That's what CVS is for.

So don't sweat it!  ;-)

I *like* getting unexpected mail from docutils-checkins.  It's like a
little surprise gift.  So far, they've all been pleasant surprises, a
trend I hope continues.

> Related to this, I didn't see any guidelines in the project policies
> regarding 'new developer' procedures.

I pretty much agree with what's written in Python's checkin policies (only
looser and more open), which are referred to
(http://www.python.org/dev/tools.html) in the Docutils project policies.

> Without the go ahead, I didn't
> think I should just commit changes to the main repository,

Thanks for being so considerate.  I'd like to pursue an open and trusting
policy for as long as possible, and deal with any abberations if (and
hopefully not when) they happen.  This is definitely not one of them.

-- 
David Goodger  <go...@us...>  Open-source projects:
  - Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
    (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
  - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/

Re: [Docutils-develop] tiny patch for optik.py

[Aahz <aa...@py...>]

On Sun, Jun 23, 2002, Ollie Rutherfurd wrote:
> 
> After a pretty hectic end of the week and weekend, I just got back 
> to doing a little work on the DocBook writer I've been working on.  
> I'm hoping to check-in a somewhat functional version into the 
> sandbox shortly, but when I went to use the new "choice" type
> from "optik.py" I found a little bug.
> 
> Below is a patch for this.

Hrm.  Optik is going into Python 2.3 as the new command-line parser.
Shouldn't we just use Python's CVS?  (With the obvious corollary that
any patches go back to the Python CVS instead of doc-utils.)
-- 
Aahz (aa...@py...)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/

Re: [Docutils-develop] tiny patch for optik.py

[David G. <go...@us...>]

Aahz wrote:
> Hrm.  Optik is going into Python 2.3 as the new command-line parser.
> Shouldn't we just use Python's CVS?  (With the obvious corollary that
> any patches go back to the Python CVS instead of doc-utils.)

I've been working on the Optik project; all patches have been fed back
to the codebase, as will any future changes.  Oliver's patch fixes an
omission in the Docutils version only; the official Optik doesn't need
it.

There are several reasons I added optik.py to Docutils:

- By including optik.py, there's no extra download & install required.

- Docutils is intended to be compatible with Python 2.0 (Python 2.1 is
  required for the test suite because of inspect.py).  Optik is not in
  Python yet, and never will be for Python 2.2 or earlier.  I also
  include a pre-2.2 version of difflib.py in the test suite because we
  use its functionality.  Such inclusions are quite common I think.

- Docutils is already using the code I added to Optik, but Greg Ward
  (Optik's architect) hasn't had time to check it in to the official
  CVS.  I decided not to wait.

- Optik itself is currently a package, but it's slated to become a
  single module in the stdlib.  The docutils/optik.py module is my
  idea of how to organize it, and took part in discussions with Greg.
  Again, I was impatient.

  But not to worry.  From the comment at the top of optik.py: "Once
  Optik itself becomes a single module, Docutils will include the
  official module and kill off this temporary fork."

Once Optik (in whatever form, known by whatever name) is in Python's
stdlib, I'll add some code to Docutils' setup.py to leave it out if
detected.

-- 
David Goodger  <go...@us...>  Open-source projects:
  - Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
    (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
  - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/

Re: [Docutils-develop] tiny patch for optik.py

[Aahz <aa...@py...>]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2002, David Goodger wrote:
>
> - Docutils is intended to be compatible with Python 2.0 (Python 2.1 is
>   required for the test suite because of inspect.py).  Optik is not in
>   Python yet, and never will be for Python 2.2 or earlier.  I also
>   include a pre-2.2 version of difflib.py in the test suite because we
>   use its functionality.  Such inclusions are quite common I think.

Gotcha.  Comment withdrawn in its entirety.
-- 
Aahz (aa...@py...)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/