You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would be better to have a virtualenv-cp than virtualenv-mv:
This would simplify the implementation, because no "backup and restore original" logic is necessary.
Currently, the backup is written close to the source -- a path that may not be writable (it's not for me).
Move = Copy + Delete -- so copy is more modular. Also, delete is trivial. Furthermore, deletion hurts, if its impossible because of lacking permissions on the source.
Not that this would be a big issue, but on our NFS the copying of a venv takes quite some time. Doing a backup is unnecessary and thus removing it would also make the script faster.
The only thing that seems to be argument for virtualenv-mv is that the moving the environment is often what people want to do. Why not make a simplified virtualenv-cp and implement virtualenv-mv in terms of virtualenv-cp + delete?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It would be better to have a virtualenv-cp than virtualenv-mv:
Move = Copy + Delete
-- so copy is more modular. Also, delete is trivial. Furthermore, deletion hurts, if its impossible because of lacking permissions on the source.The only thing that seems to be argument for virtualenv-mv is that the moving the environment is often what people want to do. Why not make a simplified virtualenv-cp and implement virtualenv-mv in terms of virtualenv-cp + delete?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: