[TIP] Coverage 3.0 beta 2

[Ned Batchelder]

I appreciate all the energy going into what I thought was the least 
interesting part of the changes!

I went into the cheeseshop to see how the .py suffix correlated to 
project structure, and found that the last release of coverage is there 
announced as "Coverage 2.85", so I guess I'll just go with "Coverage 
3.0" and be done with it.

Did anyone try any of the new stuff? :)

--Ned.

Ben Finney wrote:
> Lukas Linhart <bugs at almad.net> writes:
>
>   
>> On Thursday 30 April 2009 05:42:32 Robert Collins wrote:
>>     
>>>> not actually a Python source file but a distribution name, are to
>>>> be avoided. Can't this just be named “Coverage”?
>>>>         
>>> or perhaps 'python-coverage' which is clear, specific, and happens
>>> to fit the package naming convention for many linux distributions
>>> :).
>>>       
>> IMHO, python- is redundand for python package name. This prefix should
>> be part of packager's job (and it's also different in various
>> distributions, what would be python-coverage in debian or
>> devel/python-coverage in arch will be dev-python/coverage in gentoo).
>>     
>
> As a co-maintainer of the ‘python-coverage’ package in Debian, I agree
> with this — naming it correctly in the context of Debian is part of my
> job :-) It's quite normal and unproblematic for a library to be packaged
> by a name different from (usually more specific than) its canonical
> name.
>
> The name by which the project refers to itself, though, is important to
> get right. I think that the name “coverage” (or “Coverage”) makes
> the most sense. Certainly the *package* name, as imported in Python,
> should be just ‘coverage’; and the project name should match that to
> prevent programmers going mad.
>
>   

-- 
Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/testing-in-python/attachments/20090430/58db5e2c/attachment-0001.htm