On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Like it or not, github is easily winning this race.
Are you considering moving CPython development to Github?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/l
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> The first release candidate of Python 3.4 will be tagged in about two weeks.
> We need to be completely done with the Derby by then. And it's going to
> take a while to review and iterate on the patches we've got.
>
> Therefore: I'm goi
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> For what is worth, we'll maintain the stdlib part of 2.7 past 2 years.
You mean 2 years beyond 2015 (assuming that will be end-of-bugfix date)?
PS: I only noticed you were talking about PyPy because I recognized
your name; others won't.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 11:17, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> Le Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:58:36 +,
>> Chris Withers a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Where would I look to find out which release a fix for an issue
>>> (http://bugs.python.org/issue15822 if
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
>> On 08/02/2013 11:17, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>>
>>> Le Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:58:36 +,
>>> Chris Withers a écrit :
>>>>
>&
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> This is likely because you don't have dpkg-dev installed.
http://bugs.python.org/issue13956
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
This is likely because you don't have dpkg-dev installed.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Hi,
It's not very obvious that printing this page
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ actually prints only
the form. Can you rather offer a downloadable image/pdf.
As an aside, on Chromium, it appears on 2 separate pages, when there's
enough space on the first.
___
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 18:55, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 17:51, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> and I'm not sure we'd like to
>>> accept code from convicted fellons (
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 17:51, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> and I'm not sure we'd like to
> accept code from convicted fellons (though I'd consider that a gray
> area).
This makes me curious... why would that be a problem at all (assuming
the felony is not related to the computing field)?
__
was sent to Barry-only by mistake
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 17:20, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 17:15, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> If I change that phrase to "Use your own judgement" does that help?
>
> I would prefer "This is a matter of tast
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 19:47, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 27.03.2012 23:11, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>> Upfront hosting (Izak Burger) is going to do a Debian upgrade of the bug
>> tracker machine "soon" (likely tomorrow). This may cause some outage,
>> since there is a lot of custom stuff on
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 20:20, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>Can we have some guideline to allow only plain text emails, so as to
>>avoid cases like
>>http://mail.python.org/pipermail/docs/2012-March/007999.html, where
>>you are forced to scroll horizontally in order to read the text.
>
> docs is a differ
apology: I searched for a few minutes and could not find a code of
conduct regarding HTML mail.
Can we have some guideline to allow only plain text emails, so as to
avoid cases like
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/docs/2012-March/007999.html, where
you are forced to scroll horizontally in order t
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:40, Éric Araujo wrote:
> In PEP 386, the rule that versions using an 'rc' marker should sort
> after 'c' is buggy: I don’t think anyone will disagree that 1.0rc1 ==
> 1.0c1 and 1.0rc1 < 1.0c2. The 'rc' marker was added by Tarek shortly
> before the PEP was accepted (se
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:20, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I find that strange, especially for an expert Python dev. I, a newbie,
>> find it far friendlier (and easier for a new programmer to grasp).
>> Maybe it's because I use it all the time, and you don't?
>
> That is most likely the case. You
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 05:32, Matt Joiner wrote:
> There are so many third party modules languishing because inferior forms
> exist in the stdlib, and no centralized method for their recommendation and
> discovery.
That's interesting. Do you have a list of these? Maybe a blog post somewhere?
___
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 02:20, wrote:
> Zitat von Tshepang Lekhonkhobe :
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 23:39, "Martin v. Löwis"
>>> If that issue was getting serious, I would prefer if the .format method
>>> was deprecated, and only % formatting was kept.
>
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 05:10, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> Has Python *ever* removed a feature except in X.0 releases?
I thought this happens all the time, but with deprecations first. Is
that not the case?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 23:39, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> It is a burden for some people to learn and remember the exact details
>> of both systems and exactly how they differ. Having both in the stdlib
>> hurts readability for such people. I would prefer that the stdlib only
>> used {} formattin
Hi,
I was of the thought that Old String Formatting |"%s" % foo| was to be
phased out by Advanced String Formatting |"{}.format(foo)|. I however
keep seeing new code committed into the main VCS using the old style.
Is this okay? Is there a policy? I ask also because I expect CPython
to lead by exa
21 matches
Mail list logo
