-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly
better)
Feb 6 won't work for me. Would the 20th be better for you Martin?
No, they are both busy days - Feb 13 is then slightly
>> Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly better)
>
> Feb 6 won't work for me. Would the 20th be better for you Martin?
No, they are both busy days - Feb 13 is then slightly better than Feb
20. I have about an hour in the morning (around 8:00 UTC), and then
after 15:00 U
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 31, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
How about Friday February 13?
Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly better)
Feb 6 won't work for me. Would the 20th be better for you Martin?
Barry
-BEGIN PGP S
> How about Friday February 13?
Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly better)
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon
wrote:
Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release
dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door
qu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:03, Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Barry Warsaw
wrote:
To clarify: cruft that should have been removed 3.0 is fine to
remove for
3.0.1, for some definition of "should have been".
Just to doubl
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:07, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release
>> dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door
>> quickly?
>
> I think considering there's
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release
> dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door
> quickly?
I think considering there's only two release blockers we should plan
for about a week or two
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:03, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>>> 1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea
>>> of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1.
>>
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> To clarify: cruft that should have been removed 3.0 is fine to remove for
> 3.0.1, for some definition of "should have been".
Just to double check, can I take this as a green light to continue
with the cmp removal (http://bugs.python.org/issu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the
idea
of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1.
I don't think he actually said that (in fact, I think he said the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea
of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1. Personally I
say we continue to peer pressure him as I think a new major
> 1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea
> of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1.
I don't think he actually said that (in fact, I think he said the
opposite). It would be good if he clarified, though.
Regards,
Martin
___
Brett Cannon wrote:
This is my attempt to summarize what everyone has been saying so we
can get this resolved.
From what I can tell, most people like the idea of doing a 3.0.1
release ASAP (like "in a week or so" fast) with the stuff that should
have been removed from 3.0.0 in the first place
This is my attempt to summarize what everyone has been saying so we
can get this resolved.
>From what I can tell, most people like the idea of doing a 3.0.1
release ASAP (like "in a week or so" fast) with the stuff that should
have been removed from 3.0.0 in the first place removed.
People also s
16 matches
Mail list logo
