If anything, we're probably going to do it earlier even.
All schedules are tentative, BTW; the PSF is not responsible for
losses due to schedule changes. :-)
--Guido
On 3/8/06, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have we reached final agreement on the 2.5 release schedule? The last
> message was
Have we reached final agreement on the 2.5 release schedule? The last
message was on Feb 15, which said:
alpha 1: May 6, 2006 [planned]
alpha 2: June 3, 2006 [planned]
alpha 3: July 1, 2006 [planned]
beta 1: July 29, 2006 [planned]
beta 2: August 26, 2006 [planned]
rc 1:
Hi Neal & Jeremy,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 10:53:19PM -0800, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> I don't think it belongs in the PEP. I bumped the priority to 7 which
> is the standard protocol, though I don't know that it's really
> followed.
Ok.
> I will enumerate the existing problems for Jeremy in the
> b
On 2/17/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:24:57PM -0800, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> > http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0356.html
>
> There is at least one SF bug, namely "#1333982 Bugs of the new AST
> compiler", that in my humble opinion absolutely needs to be
Actually, it might be easier to assign separate bugs. A number of the
old bugs appear to have been fixed. It's hard to track individual
items within a bug report.
Jeremy
On 2/17/06, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is critical, but I hadn't seen the bug report. Feel free to assign
It is critical, but I hadn't seen the bug report. Feel free to assign
AST bugs to me and assign them a > 5 priority.
Jeremy
On 2/17/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:24:57PM -0800, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> > http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0356.html
>
> T
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:24:57PM -0800, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0356.html
There is at least one SF bug, namely "#1333982 Bugs of the new AST
compiler", that in my humble opinion absolutely needs to be fixed before
the release, even though I won't hide that I hav
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 21:24 -0800, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> We still need a release manager. No one has heard from Anthony. If
> he isn't interested is someone else interested in trying their hand at
> it? There are many changes necessary in PEP 101 because since the
> last release both python and
> We still need a release manager. No one has heard from Anthony.
It is the peak of the summer down here. Perhaps he is lucky enough
to be enjoying it away from computers for a while?
=Tony.Meyer
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
htt
Neal Norwitz wrote:
> What do people think about that? There are still a lot of features we
> want to add. Is this ok with everyone? Do you think it's realistic?
My view on schedules is that they need to exist, whether they are
followed or not. So having one is orders of magnitude better than
h
On 2/14/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was hoping to get a lot more feedback about PEP 356 and the 2.5
> release schedule.
>
> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0356.html
>
> I updated the schedule it is now:
>
> alpha 1: May 6, 2006 [planned]
> alpha 2: June 3, 2006 [planned]
I was hoping to get a lot more feedback about PEP 356 and the 2.5
release schedule.
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0356.html
I updated the schedule it is now:
alpha 1: May 6, 2006 [planned]
alpha 2: June 3, 2006 [planned]
alpha 3: July 1, 2006 [planned]
beta 1: July 29, 2006 [pl
12 matches
Mail list logo
