[MERGE REVIEW] Remove ConfigObj validation

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Pool wrote:

> +1 to having something like this added back in; it is useful in rare
> cases.  Perhaps 'run_bzr_subprocess' would be better?  I do think it
> should have a docstring:

Sure.

>   Run bzr in a subprocess for testing.
> 
>   This starts a new Python interpreter and runs bzr in there. 
>   This should only be used for tests that have a justifiable need for
>   this isolation: e.g. they are testing startup time, or signal
>   handling, or early startup code, etc.  Subprocess code can't be 
>   profiled or debugged so easily.
> 
> Robert (iirc) expressed the other day a dislike of run_bzr things that
> split up strings; they're prone to split the wrong way.  (Though using
> shlex might help.)  Also we have a general principle against magic-dwim
> on arguments.  Since this should be called rarely I would rather just
> delete the splitting of args and make the caller be explicit.

Shlex helps a lot.  You won't get splitting in inappropriate places.
For shell-like commands, I think it's only natural to use shell-like
syntax.  It's easier to read and easier to write.  Robert may not like
it, but he doesn't have to use it-- multiple argument support is also
provided.  And this is not intended to be a generalized call-- where we
use it, we'll use it directly, in the test suite.

> It may be better to run sys.executable, which will get the same Python
> interpreter and might help on Windows.

Yes, we can do that.

> Since retcode is the only kwarg why not just take it explicitly?

Slavish imitation of the other run_bzr commands, I guess.

Aaron

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEi4+10F+nu1YWqI0RAjdfAJ4jX8c4e8u9Q0GEc98uTJy9/Eo0SgCfXvFG
bRIG3Z5XQ5U9RnIQchsS4fY=
=BvK0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----