Re: [Python-Dev] Better support for consuming vendored packages

[Steve Dower]

FWIW, this is a topic I was planning to bring up at the language summit this 
year, so for those who are going to be there and want to toss around ideas 
(mine is nearly developed enough to present, but not quite yet), bring them.

That said, I don’t think relying on relative imports within a package should be 
at all controversial, but perhaps it needs an official endorsement somehow? PEP 
8 is what people read to find these, but I don’t know if it makes sense for the 
stdlib (maybe it could deal with some of the shadowing issues people run into? 
If they manage to import the top level module before their own appears ahead of 
it on sys.path... thinking out loud here).

Cheers,
Steve

Top-posted from my Windows phone

From: Barry Warsaw
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:56
To: Python-Dev
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Better support for consuming vendored packages

On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:33, Oleg Broytman  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:30:02PM -0700, Barry Warsaw  
> wrote:
>> Developers are mostly going to use pip, and maybe a requirements.txt,
> 
>   +virtual envs to avoid problems with global site-packages.

Yep, that was implied but of course it’s better to be explicit. :)

>   IMO virtualenv for development and frozen app for distribution solve
> the problem much better than vendoring.

+1
-Barry



___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Python-Dev] PEP 541 - Accepted

[Mark Mangoba]

Hi All,

As the BDFL-Delegate,  I’m happy to announce PEP 541 has been accepted.

PEP 541 has been voted by the packaging-wg (https://wiki.python.org/psf/
PackagingWG/Charter):

   - Donald Stufft
   - Dustin Ingram
   - Ernest W. Durbin III
   - Ewa Jodlowska
   - Kenneth Reitz
   - Mark Mangoba
   - Nathaniel J. Smith
   - Nick Coghlan
   - Nicole Harris
   - Sumana Harihareswara

Thank you to the packaging-wg and to everyone that has contributed to PEP
541.

Best regards,
Mark

-- 
Mark Mangoba | PSF IT Manager | Python Software Foundation |
mmang...@python.org | python.org | Infrastructure Staff:
infrastructure-st...@python.org | GPG: 2DE4 D92B 739C 649B EBB8 CCF6 DC05
E024 5F4C A0D1
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 541 - Accepted

[Guido van Rossum]

Thank you all!

PS for those who don't recall what this is:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0541/ "Package Index Name Retention"
was how the mypy project got its project name back on PyPI (there was an
ancient inactive project by that name whose owner did not respond to any
email).

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Mark Mangoba  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> As the BDFL-Delegate,  I’m happy to announce PEP 541 has been accepted.
>
> PEP 541 has been voted by the packaging-wg (https://wiki.python.org/psf/P
> ackagingWG/Charter):
>
>- Donald Stufft
>- Dustin Ingram
>- Ernest W. Durbin III
>- Ewa Jodlowska
>- Kenneth Reitz
>- Mark Mangoba
>- Nathaniel J. Smith
>- Nick Coghlan
>- Nicole Harris
>- Sumana Harihareswara
>
> Thank you to the packaging-wg and to everyone that has contributed to PEP
> 541.
>
> Best regards,
> Mark
>
> --
> Mark Mangoba | PSF IT Manager | Python Software Foundation |
> mmang...@python.org | python.org | Infrastructure Staff:
> infrastructure-st...@python.org | GPG: 2DE4 D92B 739C 649B EBB8 CCF6 DC05
> E024 5F4C A0D1
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/
> guido%40python.org
>
>


-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Python-Dev] Summary of Python tracker Issues

[Python tracker]

ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2018-03-16 - 2018-03-23)
Python tracker at https://bugs.python.org/

To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.

Issues counts and deltas:
  open6528 ( +3)
  closed 38349 (+37)
  total  44877 (+40)

Open issues with patches: 2542 


Issues opened (30)
==

#33087: No reliable clean shutdown method
https://bugs.python.org/issue33087  opened by Void2258

#33088: Cannot pass a SyncManager proxy to a multiprocessing subproces
https://bugs.python.org/issue33088  opened by jjdmon

#33089: Add multi-dimensional Euclidean distance function to the math 
https://bugs.python.org/issue33089  opened by rhettinger

#33090: race condition between send and recv in _ssl with non-zero tim
https://bugs.python.org/issue33090  opened by nneonneo

#33091: ssl.SSLError: Invalid error code (_ssl.c:2217)
https://bugs.python.org/issue33091  opened by devkid

#33092: The bytecode for f-string formatting is inefficient.
https://bugs.python.org/issue33092  opened by Mark.Shannon

#33093: Fatal error on SSL transport
https://bugs.python.org/issue33093  opened by Eric Toombs

#33095: Cross-reference isolated mode from relevant locations
https://bugs.python.org/issue33095  opened by ncoghlan

#33096: ttk.Treeview.insert() does not allow to insert item with "Fals
https://bugs.python.org/issue33096  opened by igor.yakovchenko

#33097: concurrent futures Executors accept tasks after interpreter sh
https://bugs.python.org/issue33097  opened by mrknmc

#33099: test_poplib hangs with the changes done in PR
https://bugs.python.org/issue33099  opened by jayyin11043

#33102: get the nth folder of a given path
https://bugs.python.org/issue33102  opened by amjad ben hedhili

#33105: os.path.isfile returns false on Windows when file path is long
https://bugs.python.org/issue33105  opened by ldconejo

#33106: Deleting a key in a read-only gdbm results in KeyError, not gd
https://bugs.python.org/issue33106  opened by sam-s

#33109: argparse: make new 'required' argument to add_subparsers defau
https://bugs.python.org/issue33109  opened by wolma

#33110: Adding a done callback to a concurrent.futures Future once it 
https://bugs.python.org/issue33110  opened by samm

#33111: Merely importing tkinter breaks parallel code (multiprocessing
https://bugs.python.org/issue33111  opened by ezwelty

#33113: Query performance is very low and can even lead to denial of s
https://bugs.python.org/issue33113  opened by ghi5107

#33114: random.sample() behavior is unexpected/unclear from docs
https://bugs.python.org/issue33114  opened by Scott Eilerman

#33115: Asyncio loop blocks with a lot of parallel tasks
https://bugs.python.org/issue33115  opened by decaz

#33117: asyncio example uses non-existing/documented method
https://bugs.python.org/issue33117  opened by hfingler

#33118: No clean way to get notified when a Transport's write buffer e
https://bugs.python.org/issue33118  opened by vitaly.krug

#33119: python sys.argv argument parsing not clear
https://bugs.python.org/issue33119  opened by Jonathan Huot

#33120: infinite loop in inspect.unwrap(unittest.mock.call)
https://bugs.python.org/issue33120  opened by peterdemin

#33121: recv returning 0 on closed connection not documented
https://bugs.python.org/issue33121  opened by joders

#33122: ftplib: FTP_TLS seems to have problems with sites that close t
https://bugs.python.org/issue33122  opened by jottbe

#33123: Path.unlink should have a missing_ok parameter
https://bugs.python.org/issue33123  opened by rbu

#33124: Lazy execution of module bytecode
https://bugs.python.org/issue33124  opened by nascheme

#33125: Windows 10 ARM64 platform support
https://bugs.python.org/issue33125  opened by Steven Noonan

#33126: Some C buffer protocol APIs not documented
https://bugs.python.org/issue33126  opened by pitrou



Most recent 15 issues with no replies (15)
==

#33126: Some C buffer protocol APIs not documented
https://bugs.python.org/issue33126

#33124: Lazy execution of module bytecode
https://bugs.python.org/issue33124

#33123: Path.unlink should have a missing_ok parameter
https://bugs.python.org/issue33123

#33122: ftplib: FTP_TLS seems to have problems with sites that close t
https://bugs.python.org/issue33122

#33121: recv returning 0 on closed connection not documented
https://bugs.python.org/issue33121

#33119: python sys.argv argument parsing not clear
https://bugs.python.org/issue33119

#33117: asyncio example uses non-existing/documented method
https://bugs.python.org/issue33117

#33113: Query performance is very low and can even lead to denial of s
https://bugs.python.org/issue33113

#33110: Adding a done callback to a concurrent.futures Future once it 
https://bugs.python.org/issue33110

#33099: test_poplib hangs with the changes done in PR
https://bugs.python.org/issue33099

#33096: ttk.Treeview.insert() does not allow to insert item with "Fals
https://bugs.py

[Python-Dev] IMPORTANT - 3.7.0b3 cutoff / 3.7.0 ABI freeze

[Ned Deily]

Just a reminder that 3.7.0b3 is almost upon us. Please get your
feature fixes, bug fixes, and documentation updates in before
2018-03-26 ~23:59 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12:00). That's a little over
3.5 days from now.

IMPORTANT: We are now entering the final phases of 3.7.0. After the
tagging for 3.7.0b3, the intention is that the ABI for 3.7.0 is
frozen. After next week's 3.7.0b3, there will only be two more
opportunities planned for changes prior to 3.7.0 final:

- 2018-04-30 3.7.0 beta 4
- 2018-05-31 3.7.0 release candidate

As I've noted in previous communications, we need to start locking
down 3.7.0 so that our downstream users, that is, third-party package
developers, Python distributors, and end users, can test their code
with confidence that the actual release of 3.7.0 will hold no
unpleasant surprises. So after 3.7.0b3, you should treat the 3.7
branch as if it is already released and in maintenance mode. That
means you should only push the kinds of changes that are appropriate
for a maintenance release: non-ABI-changing bug and feature fixes and
documentation updates. If you find a problem that requires an
ABI-altering or other significant user-facing change (for example,
something likely to introduce an incompatibility with existing users'
code or require rebuilding of user extension modules), please make
sure to set the b.p.o issue to "release blocker" priority and describe
there why you feel the change is necessary. If you are reviewing PRs
for 3.7 (and please do!), be on the lookout for and flag potential
incompatibilities (we've all made them).

Thanks again for all of your hard work towards making 3.7.0 yet
another great release!

--Ned

--
  Ned Deily
  n...@python.org -- []

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] ttk.Treeview.insert() does not allow to insert item with iid=0

[Igor Yakovchenko]

I had opened a tracker issue .

-- 
Igor Yakovchenko


Без
вирусов. www.avast.ru

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com