But why isn't it visible on python.org/dev/peps/ yet?
Because the build process of the PEPs broke when hg.python.org became
its own system.
I'll try to look into that tomorrow, since unfortunately nobody else
volunteered
to fix it.
Regards,
Martin
__
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:05:01 + (UTC)
Alex Gaynor wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The discussion on PEP 0424 seems to have subsided (and I haven't gotten angry
> emails in a week!). So I would like to request a BDFL or BDFP pronouncement
> on PEP 0424, text available here:
> http://hg.python.org/peps/
2012/7/28 Guido van Rossum :
> Looks good to me, so accepted.
>
> But why isn't it visible on python.org/dev/peps/ yet?
The rebuilding hook is broken.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailm
Looks good to me, so accepted.
But why isn't it visible on python.org/dev/peps/ yet?
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'll pronounce. Give me a few days.
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Alex Gaynor
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The discussion on PEP 0424 seems to
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Chris Jerdonek
> wrote:
>> Also, this response seems somewhat at odds to the response I got to a
>> patch that refactors part of regrest, fixes some bugs in it, and adds
>> its first unit tests (in particular,
I'll pronounce. Give me a few days.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The discussion on PEP 0424 seems to have subsided (and I haven't gotten angry
> emails in a week!). So I would like to request a BDFL or BDFP pronouncement
> on PEP 0424, text available here:
>
Hi all,
The discussion on PEP 0424 seems to have subsided (and I haven't gotten angry
emails in a week!). So I would like to request a BDFL or BDFP pronouncement
on PEP 0424, text available here:
http://hg.python.org/peps/file/tip/pep-0424.txt
Alex
_
On 28.07.12 12:58, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
This is nearly the same as the question I asked below about feature
freeze (or that I was trying to ask), to which I thought I received an
answer different from the one stated above:
Thank you, Chris.
___
Pyt
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> Also, this response seems somewhat at odds to the response I got to a
> patch that refactors part of regrest, fixes some bugs in it, and adds
> its first unit tests (in particular, increasing code coverage):
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue1
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> I have a set of patches about the correct __sizeof__ implementations (one
> has already been committed (issue #15456), 13 left, 2 of them published
> (#15469 for deque and #15475 for itertools)). The most tedious is to write
> tests for th
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> (2) When adding new tests (e.g. in the course of fixing a bug or
>> increasing test coverage), are we allowed to refactor other tests so
>> that supporting test code can be shared? Or should the tests be added
>> in a less DRY fashion a
On Sat Jul 28 10:54:24 CEST 2012, Serhiy Storchaka storchaka at gmail.com wrote:
> For not to duplicate the supporting code, I suggest
> add (move from test_sys test) three utility functions to test.support
> module (issue #15467). Also from the use of the common code will benefit
> issues #15402
I have a set of patches about the correct __sizeof__ implementations
(one has already been committed (issue #15456), 13 left, 2 of them
published (#15469 for deque and #15475 for itertools)). The most tedious
is to write tests for them, especially paranoid tests, on which Martin
v. Löwis insist
Hi all again,
I've been quite busy these days and I collected all the suggestions
about the proposal. Here is a small summary:
Christian Heimes:
two numbers:
Julian Day Number (Rata Die) 32 bit signed integer
nanoseconds in a day 64 bit signed or unsigned integer
pro:
14 matches
Mail list logo
