That's right. It is true that it isn't branch-specific information,
and that does cause a little bit of irritation for me too, but neither
is Misc/developers.txt or Misc/maintainers.rst.
Of course, we might consider a separate HG repository (I'm all in favor
of many small repos, instead of a giga
Am 23.09.2010 07:32, schrieb Jack Diederich:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 6:24 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>
deputed tracker authority/ies. Not everyone has the same ide
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> To further reduce overhead, would it make sense for the signature of
> the QueueListener constructor to be (queue, *handlers)?
Good suggestion - thanks.
Regards,
Vinay
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pytho
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2010, at 6:24 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>>> deputed tracker authority/ies. Not everyone has the same idea about how
>>> to handle the various fields and proces
A discussion occurred (w/o me) on #python-dev where moving it to Doc/
would allow it to show up at docs.python.org to perhaps get more
people involved. It also allows developers to contribute to the docs
w/o having to get pydotorg commit rights.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 21:29, Fred Drake wrote:
>
Cameron Simpson writes:
> I've just read that thread. Mark doesn't sound that way to me. "I
> disagree entirely" is an entirely valid response, when backed up
> with argument, such as his immediately following sentence:
>
> Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree,
Agreeing to disagree
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> the first thing on the agenda is a complete rewrite of the developer
> docs and moving them into the Doc/ directory
I'd like to know why you think moving the developer docs into the
CPython tree makes sense.
My own thought here is that they
On Sep 22, 2010, at 6:24 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> deputed tracker authority/ies. Not everyone has the same idea about how
>> to handle the various fields and processes. Who decides in cases of
>> disagreement?
>
> We discussed t
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:18:39 am Tim Peters wrote:
> Yikes - Mark has done terrific work in some very demanding areas, &
> I'd hate to see him feel unwelcome. So that's my advice: find a
> way to smooth this over. You're welcome ;-)
I'd like to second that. Mark has been pushy, annoying and dema
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 18:24, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 9/22/2010 6:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> > Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple
>> > factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mento
On 9/22/2010 8:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...]
>> >
>> >Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't
>> >want to go into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues
>> >that are beyond what this community can deal with.
>> >
>> > Even I felt a bit offended by that on
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 9/22/2010 6:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple
> > factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed
> > if we want to give privileges early on.
>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
> Yikes - Mark has done terrific work in some very demanding areas, &
> I'd hate to see him feel unwelcome. So that's my advice: find a way
> to smooth this over. You're welcome ;-)
>
> [Guido]
>>> ...
>>> I understand the desire to keep dirty
Yikes - Mark has done terrific work in some very demanding areas, &
I'd hate to see him feel unwelcome. So that's my advice: find a way
to smooth this over. You're welcome ;-)
[Guido]
>> ...
>> I understand the desire to keep dirty laundry in. I would like to keep
>> it in too. Unfortunately th
On 9/22/2010 6:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
There was a whole python-dev thread some time (weeks? months?) ago where
several of us already tried to suggest more fruitful ways of
contributing, suggestions which weren't received very welcomingly AFAIR.
There were two types of criticisms and sug
On 22/09/2010 16:44, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Guido van Rossum writes:
> I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to
> "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was
> inevitable, by an exchange
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm planning to make some smallish changes to logging in Python 3.2, please
> see
>
> http://plumberjack.blogspot.com/2010/09/improved-queuehandler-queuelistener.html
>
> If you're interested, I'd be grateful for any feedback you c
Usual disclaimer: I am not a python-dev, just a lurker who sticks his 2c in
sometimes...
On 22Sep2010 07:17, Guido van Rossum wrote:
| On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
| > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
| >> Simply, situations like the above (Mark clo
Dear Python Devs,
I am hoping to gain feedback on an ISO C1X/C++ standard library
proposal I hope to submit. It consists of a rationale
(http://mallocv2.wordpress.com/) which shows how growth in RAM
capacity is exponentially outgrowing the growth in RAM access speed.
The consequences are profo
> Given that this came out rather unfortunately (even if the end result
> is the best that could have happened) I would recommend that in the
> future more attention is paid to "documenting" publicly that someone's
> being booted out was inevitable, by an exchange of messages on
> python-dev (or py
Hi all,
I'm planning to make some smallish changes to logging in Python 3.2, please see
http://plumberjack.blogspot.com/2010/09/improved-queuehandler-queuelistener.html
If you're interested, I'd be grateful for any feedback you can give.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
__
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Guido van Rossum writes:
>
> > I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to
> > "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was
> > inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or
> > python-com
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:29:23 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> Guido van Rossum writes:
>
> > I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to
> > "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was
> > inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or
> > pytho
Guido van Rossum writes:
> I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to
> "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was
> inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or
> python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I
> don't think tha
On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Where was the decision to revoke privileges discussed? Not on any
> mailing list that I am subscribed to.
It was on IRC.
> Was Mark given an ultimatum?
I sent him a nicely worded email. The tracker privs were set back
to the normal leve
On 22/09/2010 15:33, dar...@ontrenet.com wrote:
If you guys continue to make a public jury of this, no one else will want
to step into that role
One of the perhaps-downsides of projects with an open community and open
development processes is that any dirty-laundry there might be tends t
2010/9/22 Guido van Rossum :
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> A number of lingering issues that would have otherwise continued
>> lingering did indeed get closed. That work is still appreciated, even
>> if it was ultimately deemed by the other tracker admins not to be
>> s
If you guys continue to make a public jury of this, no one else will want
to step into that role
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou
>> wrote:
>>> Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because
>>> nobo
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because
>> nobody would answer his message on a short delay) have happened
>> multiple times - despite people opposing, obvio
On 9/21/2010 7:58 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> I'm rather sad to have been sacked, but such is life. I won't be doing
> any more work on the bug tracker for obvious reasons, but hope that you
> who have managed to keep your voluntary jobs manage to keep Python going.
>
> Kindest regards.
>
> Mark
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> Neil Hodgson writes:
>
> > Over time, the set of trail bytes used has expanded - in GB18030
> > digits are possible although many of the most important characters
> > for parsing such as ''' "#%&.?/''' are still safe as they may
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because
> nobody would answer his message on a short delay) have happened
> multiple times - despite people opposing, obviously -, and we decided
> that it was better to remove his t
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andrew McNamara
wrote:
>>Yeah, that's the original reasoning that had me leaning towards the
>>parallel API approach. If I seem to be changing my mind a lot in this
>>thread it's because I'm genuinely torn between the desire to make it
>>easier to port existing 2.x
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:16:52 -0400
Jack Diederich wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Mark Lawrence
> wrote:
> > I'm rather sad to have been sacked, but such is life. I won't be doing any
> > more work on the bug tracker for obvious reasons, but hope that you who have
> > managed to keep
34 matches
Mail list logo
