On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:04 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> As I read it, Nick's thought wasn't that distutils2 would help the OP,
> but that the OP could help Distutils2 and the community by taking his
> use case to the developers and making sure that that use case is
> supported before the release
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Georg Brandl wrote:
> > summary:
> > merge from push conflict.
>
> this message is not quite correct -- there is no conflict involved.
> You're just merging two heads on the same branch in order to have
> only one head in the master repo.
Okay, got it.
On 07/04/2011, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 20:18, Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>> Testtools did something to address this problem, but I forget what it
>> was offhand.
Some issues were worked around, but I don't remember any comprehensive solution.
> The proposed "fix" is to make test suite
Thanks for the feedback. I'll be sure to include more information in my
future commit messages.
Nadeem
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/optio
On 13.04.2011 03:43, senthil.kumaran wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a4d1a3e0f7bd
> changeset: 69306:a4d1a3e0f7bd
> parent: 69305:35b16d49c0b1
> parent: 69299:c8d075051e88
> user:Senthil Kumaran
> date:Wed Apr 13 09:38:51 2011 +0800
> summary:
> merge from p
On 12.04.2011 23:05, nadeem.vawda wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/0010cc5f22d4
> changeset: 69275:0010cc5f22d4
> user:Nadeem Vawda
> date:Tue Apr 12 23:02:42 2011 +0200
> summary:
> Fix 64-bit safety issue in BZ2Compressor and BZ2Decompressor.
>
> files:
> Lib/test
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:25:59 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Lukas Lueg
> > wrote:
> >> Any other ideas on how to solve this in a better way?
> >
> > Have you tried with distutils2? If it can't help you,
Antoine Pitrou, 13.04.2011 02:07:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
>> insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
>> semantics without tests?
>
> Well, why do you think tes
On Apr 13, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>
>> However, I think we are really discussing a theoretical issue here. All the
>> PEP is trying to achieve is to raise the bar for C code in the stdlib, for
>> exactly the reason
On 4/13/2011 7:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnel wrote:
I think it would help to point out in the PEP that code that fails to touch
the theoretical 100% test coverage bar is not automatically excluded from
integration, but needs solid reasoning, rev
Hi Arc,
I think you should forward this to python-dev. (CCed)
There was a discussion on this over there, so someone should be
definitely interested.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:33:55AM -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> We have a number of students who proposed to port PyPy's benchmarking suite to
> Python
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> However, I think we are really discussing a theoretical issue here. All the
> PEP is trying to achieve is to raise the bar for C code in the stdlib, for
> exactly the reason that it can easily introduce subtle semantic differences
> i
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:43:39AM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Can you add a Misc/NEWS entry?
Added. Thanks for noticing this.
--
Senthil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscrib
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Looking at the pastebin you are using !lv = 2. Why the !? Without it,
> it works fine:
>
>
I just wanted to make sure I was executing a python statement and not a pdb
alias.
I re-tested without the exclamation mark and still have the sa
Georg Brandl, 13.04.2011 08:54:
On 13.04.2011 02:07, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
Tres Seaver wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without tests
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> I was preparing a commit to 3.2 and default branches and mistakenly
> used -m insread of -l commit option. As a result, I have
If you had caught the change before merging to default, then "hg
rollback" would have done the trick, but
16 matches
Mail list logo
