2018-05-29 22:12 GMT+02:00 Miro Hrončok :
> On 29.5.2018 22:01, Victor Stinner wrote:
>>
>> GitHub provides a [Update branch] button. It seems like the button
>> does a rebase, no?
>
>
> AFAIK it merges the traget branch to the PR branch. No rebase.
Oh right! And it's the good option :-) Rebase ca
On 29.5.2018 22:01, Victor Stinner wrote:
GitHub provides a [Update branch] button. It seems like the button
does a rebase, no?
AFAIK it merges the traget branch to the PR branch. No rebase.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
P
GitHub provides a [Update branch] button. It seems like the button
does a rebase, no?
Victor
2018-05-29 18:24 GMT+02:00 Matthias Bussonnier :
> On Tue, 29 May 2018 at 08:43, Paul G wrote:
>>
>> This doesn't seem like the best idea, since it would kick off dozens or
>> hundreds of builds for ever
On Tue, 29 May 2018 at 08:43, Paul G wrote:
> This doesn't seem like the best idea, since it would kick off dozens or
> hundreds of builds for every commit to the master branch.
>
Sorry if I was unclear, I was not suggesting to do that for PRs against
master, but do that only for 2.7, 3.4 and 3.
Here's an update on the 3.7.0 endgame. As announced several days ago, we
made the difficult decision to hold back on 3.7.0rc1 due primarily to some
unexpected difficulties being seen downstream due to changes in how
docstrings were handled in 3.7.0 (details below). After some discussions
about vari
This doesn't seem like the best idea, since it would kick off dozens or
hundreds of builds for every commit to the master branch.
On 05/29/2018 11:25 AM, Matthias Bussonnier wrote:
>> As I wrote, it became very difficult to merge any PR on 2.7 because of
>> that. We all run a race to be the first
> As I wrote, it became very difficult to merge any PR on 2.7 because of
> that. We all run a race to be the first one to merge a change into
> 2.7. The next one will get a "conflict" even if the merged commit is
> unrelated (as I described: two different unrelated directories).
Couldn't miss-isli
Looks like it breaks the 3.7 ABI, which is certainly not allowed at this time.
But it’s not a limited API structure, so no problem for 3.8.
Top-posted from my Windows 10 phone
From: Victor Stinner
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 6:44
To: INADA Naoki
Cc: Python-Dev
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Compact G
> I hacked GC module and managed to slim PyGC_Head down from 3 words to 2
> words.
> It passes test suite, while some comments and code cleanup is needed before
> merge.
Does this change break the stable ABI?
Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-De
Hi, all.
I hacked GC module and managed to slim PyGC_Head down from 3 words to 2
words.
It passes test suite, while some comments and code cleanup is needed before
merge.
* https://bugs.python.org/issue33597
* https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/7043
I want to merge it after 3.7.0rc1 and buil
On 29 May 2018 at 08:52, Ned Deily wrote:
> On May 28, 2018, at 17:42, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > Please use the same configuration for 2.7, 3.6, 3.7 and master branches!
>
> Sounds reasonable. I've updated the 2.7 configuration to match the others
> and not require the PR branch be up to date be
11 matches
Mail list logo