On Fri., 29 Nov. 2019, 9:10 am Guido van Rossum, wrote:
> I presume that would be an informational PEP, right?
>
I hadn't considered that, but you're right, an Informational PEP would make
sense: there's no new decision to be made, we just want a clear place to
capture the rationale and the anti
I presume that would be an informational PEP, right?
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:53 PM Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>
> On Fri., 29 Nov. 2019, 6:15 am Facundo Batista,
> wrote:
>
>> El jue., 28 de nov. de 2019 a la(s) 12:35, Facundo Batista
>> (facundobati...@gmail.com) escribió:
>>
>> > Did we take a d
On Thu., 28 Nov. 2019, 4:43 am Brett Cannon, wrote:
> What do people think of the idea of requiring all deprecations specifying
> a version that the feature will be removed in (which under our annual
> release cadence would be at least the third release from the start of the
> deprecation, hence
On Fri., 29 Nov. 2019, 6:15 am Facundo Batista,
wrote:
> El jue., 28 de nov. de 2019 a la(s) 12:35, Facundo Batista
> (facundobati...@gmail.com) escribió:
>
> > Did we take a decision of what comes after 3.9?
> >
> > Do we have a PEP for that decision? (couldn't find it)
>
> Thanks everybody for
On Nov 28, 2019, at 07:50, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Everybody has long presumed we'd go with 3.10. Maybe we're not following
> semver to the letter, but this part of it we follow -- 4.0 would mean a major
> rewrite or incompatible change.
>
> For a long time I had hoped that Larry Hastings'
El jue., 28 de nov. de 2019 a la(s) 12:35, Facundo Batista
(facundobati...@gmail.com) escribió:
> Did we take a decision of what comes after 3.9?
>
> Do we have a PEP for that decision? (couldn't find it)
Thanks everybody for the responses.
So 3.10 it is, not a hard made decision, but the collec
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:02 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
> But there is other things that might break your code between releases,
> such as bug fixes, language changes that become the default, etc. Are
> deprecations the biggest pain point in transitioning to a new Python
> version for people, or is
Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 11/27/2019 10:38 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > What do people think of the idea of requiring all
> > deprecations specifying a version that the feature will be removed in
> > (which under our
> > annual release cadence would be at least the third release from the start
> >
Hi all,
The database backing buildbot.python.org has been reset in order to
clean out old workers and builders, and to allow some relationships to
be created properly to allow future cleanups without resetting
everything. This does unfortunately mean that old links are going to
be broken, includi
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 9:50 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 15:55, Victor Stinner wrote:
> >
> > It has been discussed a few months ago. There is the "if six.PY3: ..."
> > issue and similar issues which should be solved first. Basic example:
>
> I've seen a few fixes to projects to
I've appreciated Anthony Sottile's flake8-2020 plugin
(https://pypi.org/project/flake8-2020/), which adds checks for a variety of
misuses of sys.version and sys.version_info that would lead to breakage on a
Python 4.0, and/or 10.0, in addition to Python 3.10.
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 08:02 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Instead of trying random possibly related patches, why don't you use a debugger
and find out exactly what is going wrong? From your report it doesn't seem that
you have tried to do so already (apologies if you did and I missed the hint).
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 15:55, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> It has been discussed a few months ago. There is the "if six.PY3: ..."
> issue and similar issues which should be solved first. Basic example:
I've seen a few fixes to projects to remove assumptions that the "X"
in 3.X is a single digit. So
Instead of trying random possibly related patches, why don't you use a
debugger and find out exactly what is going wrong? From your report it
doesn't seem that you have tried to do so already (apologies if you did and
I missed the hint).
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 7:41 AM Peter Morrow via Python-Dev
Hopefully by the time we actually *do* need to roll out 4.0, six will be
dead, or at least its Python 2 support will be gone. And whatever is needed
to make the upgrade smooth for people should be in in the 4.0 release, not
a 3rd party library.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 7:53 AM Victor Stinner wrote
Everybody has long presumed we'd go with 3.10. Maybe we're not following
semver to the letter, but this part of it we follow -- 4.0 would mean a
major rewrite or incompatible change.
For a long time I had hoped that Larry Hastings' Gilectomy project would
succeed, in which case that would be a log
It has been discussed a few months ago. There is the "if six.PY3: ..."
issue and similar issues which should be solved first. Basic example:
$ python3
Python 3.7.5 (default, Oct 17 2019, 12:16:48)
>>> import sys
>>> sys.version_info = (4,0)
>>> import six
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 15:35, Facundo Batista wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Did we take a decision of what comes after 3.9?
>
> Do we have a PEP for that decision? (couldn't find it)
>
> (not arguing in favor of one or another, just want to know the
> rationale behind it)
I don't think there's been a for
Hi Folks,
Python-dev seemed to be the most appropriate email alias for this,
though please do point me somewhere else if this is not appropriate.
We are using a custom arm64 based distro built using yocto and as such
we are currently using python 3.5.6. We are hitting a failure in a python3
tes
Hello!
Did we take a decision of what comes after 3.9?
Do we have a PEP for that decision? (couldn't find it)
(not arguing in favor of one or another, just want to know the
rationale behind it)
Thanks!
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org.ar/
T
20 matches
Mail list logo
