Thanks Eric for the reply and Nick for mentioning --record-only, this
was what I needed.
Tarek: I find the bug tracker simpler than svnmerge to keep track of
merges to be done. Of course, when there is no report, as for the typo
fixes I made, this doesn’t help. Oh well.
I’m going to do some Mercu
> I do it every time myself, AFAIK it reduces the workload of people
> that are making sure all pending patches were applied.
Do we really have any such people still?
I thought they have all given up long ago.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing lis
> (I have another request for the dev FAQ - could we get an FAQ entry
> about how to update the FAQ itself? I usually just post here in the
> hopes that someone will fix it, but we should be able to do better
> than that. People have told me many times in the past how it actually
> gets updated, bu
Le jeudi 19 août 2010 19:43:15, amaury.forgeotdarc a écrit :
> Author: amaury.forgeotdarc
> Date: Thu Aug 19 19:43:15 2010
> New Revision: 84209
>
> Log:
> Check the return values for all functions returning an ast node.
> Failure to do it may result in strange error messages or even crashes,
> in
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Timothy Kinney
wrote:
> I am getting some unexpected behavior in Python 2.6.4 on a WinXP SP3 box.
>
> If I run the following:
>
> [code]
> from pylab import randint
>
> for s in range(100):
> print randint(0,1)
> [/code]
>
> I get 100 zeroes.
>
> If I import ran
2010/8/19 Georg Brandl :
> Am 19.08.2010 15:32, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>>> Thanks for the replies.
>>>
>>> The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the
>>> svnmerge-commit-message too, and people in #python-dev have told me that
>
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:10:19 +0200 (CEST)
victor.stinner wrote:
> Author: victor.stinner
> Date: Thu Aug 19 19:10:18 2010
> New Revision: 84204
>
> Log:
> Fix os.get_exec_path() (code and tests) for python -bb
>
> Catch BytesWarning exceptions.
You should not catch warnings, but silence them us
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:28:19 +0200
Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 19.08.2010 15:32, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> >> Thanks for the replies.
> >>
> >> The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the
> >> svnmerge-commit-message too, and peopl
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2010/8/19 Timothy Kinney :
>> I am getting some unexpected behavior in Python 2.6.4 on a WinXP SP3 box.
>
> This mailing list is for development *of* python, not about
> development *with* python.
> Your question should be dire
Hi,
2010/8/19 Timothy Kinney :
> I am getting some unexpected behavior in Python 2.6.4 on a WinXP SP3 box.
This mailing list is for development *of* python, not about
development *with* python.
Your question should be directed to the comp.lang.python newsgroup, or
the python-list mailing list.
I
I am getting some unexpected behavior in Python 2.6.4 on a WinXP SP3 box.
If I run the following:
[code]
from pylab import randint
for s in range(100):
print randint(0,1)
[/code]
I get 100 zeroes.
If I import randint from random instead, I get the expected behavior
of a random distribution
Am 19.08.2010 15:32, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>> Thanks for the replies.
>>
>> The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the
>> svnmerge-commit-message too, and people in #python-dev have told me that
>> the merge order is py3k > 3.1,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>> Oh, this has to be done for every commit? I have for example fixed typos
>> in 3.x that don’t apply to 2.7, so I have to block them?
>
> I don't know that this matters, since I don't think anyone's doing mass
> merges in this direction. I tend
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the
> svnmerge-commit-message too, and people in #python-dev have told me that
> the merge order is py3k > 3.1, py3k > 2.7. My problem here is that I
> committed
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> Or else it's just an accident of implementation, since the AST doesn't
>> actually *need* to distinguish those two cases.
>
> It doesn't seem to be an accident, because ast_for_slice()
> goes out of its way to manufactur
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 7:55 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the replies.
>>
>> The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the
>> svnmerge-commit-message too, and people in #python-dev have told me that
>> the merge order is py3k> 3.1,
On 8/19/2010 7:55 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
Thanks for the replies.
The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the
svnmerge-commit-message too, and people in #python-dev have told me that
the merge order is py3k> 3.1, py3k> 2.7. My problem here is that I
committed r84190 in 3.1 manual
Thanks for the replies.
The dev FAQ is clear about regular use, it tells about the
svnmerge-commit-message too, and people in #python-dev have told me that
the merge order is py3k > 3.1, py3k > 2.7. My problem here is that I
committed r84190 in 3.1 manually, but it should have been an svnmerge of
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Or else it's just an accident of implementation, since the AST doesn't
actually *need* to distinguish those two cases.
It doesn't seem to be an accident, because ast_for_slice()
goes out of its way to manufacture a Name node for the
missing argument.
It doesn't seem to sig
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Le jeudi 19 août 2010 12:07:36, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
>> What I do is :
>>
>> 4 cd /the/right/branch/or/trunk
>> $ svn ci -m 'comment'
>> you get a revision number
>>
>> $ cd py3k
>> $ svn up
>> $ svnmerge.py merge -r revision
>> (...)
>
>
Le jeudi 19 août 2010 12:07:36, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
> What I do is :
>
> 4 cd /the/right/branch/or/trunk
> $ svn ci -m 'comment'
> you get a revision number
>
> $ cd py3k
> $ svn up
> $ svnmerge.py merge -r revision
> (...)
Wrong. trunk branch is dead, py3k is the new main branch ;-)
--
Vict
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> Let’s turn one error into an occasion for learning:
>
>> Log:
>> Manually merge r84187
>
> I was bad with numbers and actually ran svnmerge merge -r 81417, which
> did nothing. Since I have manually merged now, do I have to update the
> bookke
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> In other words,
>
> x[::]
>
> is being parsed as though it had been written
>
> x[::None]
>
> Is there a good reason for an omitted third slice
> argument being treated differently from the others?
Probably so it looks different from the AS
I've discovered a slightly surprising thing about the way
AST objects for slices are constructed. According to
Python.asdl, all three parts of a slice are optional:
slice = Slice(expr? lower, expr? upper, expr? step)
But that's not quite the way the parser sees things:
Python 3.1.2 (r312:791
24 matches
Mail list logo
