Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Where would adding a (undocumented) get_filename() method to ZipImporter
>>> objects for the benefit of the -m switch fit then?
>
>> Why not call it _get_filename() in 3.0 and get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 8, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
Where would adding a (undocumented) get_filename() method to
ZipImporter
objects for the benefit of the -m switch fit then?
Why not call it _get_filename() in
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>> Where would adding a (undocumented) get_filename() method to ZipImporter
>> objects for the benefit of the -m switch fit then?
>
> Why not call it _get_filename() in 3.0 and get_filename() in 3.1?
Actually, since it should only be a fair
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> Where would adding a (undocumented) get_filename() method to ZipImporter
> objects for the benefit of the -m switch fit then?
Why not call it _get_filename() in 3.0 and get_filename() in 3.1?
___
Python-Dev mailin
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 05:11, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
>>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm personally okay with performance fixes in point releases, as long it
doesn't change API or add additional features
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 05:11, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Dec 7, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
>
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm personally okay with performance fixes in point releases, as long it
>>> doesn't chang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 7, 2008, at 11:17 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I don't recall such policy, and I can't see anything wrong with
including performance fixes in a bug fix release. Maybe you were
confusing this with whether performance fixes can be considered
rele
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 7, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm personally okay with performance fixes in point releases, as
long it doesn't change API or add additional features.
Does your okay include or exclude new internal APIs l
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I wasn't (primarily) talking about fixing this particular issue.
Time needs to be made available also for the upcoming 2.4.6 and 2.5.3
releases (which should, IMO, get priority over a 3.0 bugfix release
at this point)
I've no opinion on the priority of the releases. Since
>> I think it is still timely when fixed in January or February.
>> In fact, releasing it still in December might not be possible,
>> due to the limited time available.
>
> The cmp() / PyObject_Compare() removal patch is almost done.
I wasn't (primarily) talking about fixing this particular issue
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm personally okay with performance fixes in point releases, as long it
doesn't change API or add additional features.
Does your okay include or exclude new internal APIs like new helper
functions or a new C modules?
Christian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 7, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think it is still timely when fixed in January or February.
In fact, releasing it still in December might not be possible,
due to the limited time available.
The cmp() /
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
I have a patch for this [1], but I don't think this should be
considered a release blocker or even backported to 3.0. It's merely a
convenience feature and doesn't inhibit the usefulness of the PEP in
any way.
Amaury said:
An issue was already filed about this:
http://b
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>
>> I think it is still timely when fixed in January or February.
>> In fact, releasing it still in December might not be possible,
>> due to the limited time available.
>
> The cmp() / PyObject_C
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think it is still timely when fixed in January or February.
In fact, releasing it still in December might not be possible,
due to the limited time available.
The cmp() / PyObject_Compare() removal patch is almost done. With some
help I can finish it until Tuesday eveni
> There's clearly an argument of timeliness there, which
> is why we'd like to get this fixed ASAP.
I think it is still timely when fixed in January or February.
In fact, releasing it still in December might not be possible,
due to the limited time available.
Regards,
Martin
_
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A point release just to remove a function whose withdrawal has been
> advertised as a 3.0 change hardly seems worth the substantial effort of
> cutting a release. If cmp() shouldn't have been in 3.0 and was then
> there's sur
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 15:41, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Benjamin Peterson
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sinc
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 15:41, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Dec 6, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Benjamin Peterson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since the release of 3.0, seve
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
> Since the release of 3.0, several critical issues have come to our
> attention. Namely, the builtin cmp function wasn't removed [1] and the
> new IO library proved to be (as expected) abysmally slow [2][3][4].
> Christian proposed that we release 3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 6, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since the release of 3.0, several critical issues have come to our
attention. Namely, the builtin cmp function wasn't r
Benjamin Peterson gmail.com> writes:
>
> Since the release of 3.0, several critical issues have come to our
> attention. Namely, the builtin cmp function wasn't removed [1] and the
> new IO library proved to be (as expected) abysmally slow [2][3][4].
> Christian proposed that we release 3.0.1 wit
+1
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the release of 3.0, several critical issues have come to our
> attention. Namely, the builtin cmp function wasn't removed [1] and the
> new IO library proved to be (as expected) abysmally slow [2][3][4].
> Chri
Strong +1
Are the RMs on board?
- Original Message -
From: "Benjamin Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: [Python-Dev] 3.0.1 possibilities
Since the release of 3.0, several critical issues have come to our
attent
Since the release of 3.0, several critical issues have come to our
attention. Namely, the builtin cmp function wasn't removed [1] and the
new IO library proved to be (as expected) abysmally slow [2][3][4].
Christian proposed that we release 3.0.1 within the next week to patch
up this critical issue
25 matches
Mail list logo
