Re: [PATCH 1/2] remote-helpers: tests: use python directly

> David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So it is a right thing to do in that sense.
> >>
> >> I however am having this nagging feeling that I may be missing
> >> something subtle here.  Comments from others are very much welcome.
> >
> > Yes, this is correct.  Another way to skin this cat would be to do
> > search/replace in a Makefile to burn in the PYTHON_PATH similar to how
> > we do for the .sh scripts and other .py files in the main Makefile.
> > The remote helpers are in contrib/ so they do not go through the main
> > Makefile, which is the root cause.
> >
> > Longer-term, it would be good to treat these uniformly, but this is no
> > worse for now.
> 
> Ahh, so my "nagging feeling" was that remote-helpers could in theory
> be updated to follow the PYTHON_PATH like the rest of the system and
> matching these two in that direction is the better longer-term fix?

> I somehow thought that there were valid reasons that we could not do
> so for some technical reason (e.g. the instalation of python used to
> run hg and/or bzr via these remote helpers and the installation of
> python we use may need to be different?).  As long as the right
> longer-term direction is not "we cannot fundamentally unify them",
> then I am very happy.