Open Stack

On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 15:43 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
> > On 12/04/2012 02:06 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >> In summary, I would hate it if we went back to the previous situation.
> >> I'm not personally attached to setuptools_git, but any proposed
> >> replacement solution should keep its simplicity.
> > 
> > Maybe a solution could be to add a Jenkins hook for re-generating the
> > MANIFEST.in file after each commit? Just like we currently have for
> > updating the contributors email list?
> 
> I suppose that could work, although I'd wait on Monty's opinion before
> moving on that :)
> 
> Note that it's not just MANIFEST.in that needs updating, but also the
> "scripts" entry in setup.py. Most developers just forgot to update it
> when they added a new executable under bin/... and it needs updating
> unless you rely on setuptools_git to handle that for you.
> 
> Makes regenerating as a commit hook a bit more tricky (mix autogenerated
> with authored content in a single file).

(Excuse the hand-waving)

If setuptools_git generates a bunch of info from git when creating a
tarball, you'd think it would include that info in the tarball itself.

i.e. if setuptools_git replaces the need for MANIFEST.in to be kept up
to date, you'd expect that a generated MANIFEST.in would be included in
the generated tarball.

Cheers,
Mark.