[TIP] are the absolute paths in .coverage necessary?

[Chris Withers]

On 17/10/2016 02:51, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> writes:
>
>> There's no guarantee that all of the paths make sense as relative to
>> the current directory, since they might not be below the current
>> directory.
>
> What may not be clear from that, but I think is intailed in what Ned
> says:
>
> The *collection* of the coverage information is done at a different time
> from other actions, such as collecting more, or reporting coverage.

Don't worry, I understand this, specifically from using coverage on 
projects across multiple platforms and python versions ;-)

I also finally take Ned's point about the paths making sense relative to 
some other tree, such as if they were installed in the system python, etc.

I guess my ideal world would see the paths recorded in the .coverage 
file be relatively to the location they were loaded from in sys.path.
That might be a big ask, but thought I'd throw it out there...

Chris