On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> On 23.02.2011 20:43, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> Or you realized later how nice it would be, grabbed the time machine,
>>> and fixed 10 release blockers on the 19th. :)
>>
>> No no no. He actually grabbed the time machine, drove 20 years bac
On 23.02.2011 20:43, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Or you realized later how nice it would be, grabbed the time machine,
>> and fixed 10 release blockers on the 19th. :)
>
> No no no. He actually grabbed the time machine, drove 20 years back,
> and gave it to Guido so he could release Python 0.9 in
On Feb 23, 2011, at 08:43 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Or you realized later how nice it would be, grabbed the time machine,
>> and fixed 10 release blockers on the 19th. :)
>
>No no no. He actually grabbed the time machine, drove 20 years back,
>and gave it to Guido so he could release Python 0.
> Or you realized later how nice it would be, grabbed the time machine,
> and fixed 10 release blockers on the 19th. :)
No no no. He actually grabbed the time machine, drove 20 years back,
and gave it to Guido so he could release Python 0.9 in time. Guido
then kept the machine ever since.
Regards
2011/2/23 Georg Brandl :
> On 23.02.2011 19:51, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> As pointed out by Ramiro Morales on the Python-Argentina list
>>> (quoting Guido's blog post
>>> http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/01/brief-timeline-of-python.h
On 23.02.2011 19:51, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> As pointed out by Ramiro Morales on the Python-Argentina list
>> (quoting Guido's blog post
>> http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/01/brief-timeline-of-python.html
>> )
>> Python 0.9.0 was re
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> As pointed out by Ramiro Morales on the Python-Argentina list
> (quoting Guido's blog post
> http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/01/brief-timeline-of-python.html
> )
> Python 0.9.0 was released on 20 Feb 1991
>
> Python 3.2.0 was released
As pointed out by Ramiro Morales on the Python-Argentina list
(quoting Guido's blog post
http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/01/brief-timeline-of-python.html
)
Python 0.9.0 was released on 20 Feb 1991
Python 3.2.0 was released on 20 Feb 2011
Python's come a long way.
I look forward to the ne
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
>> And the number 1 reason I consider messing with the numbering to be a bad
>> idea:
>>
> "3.2">= "3.2.0"
>>
>> False
>
> (3, 2)>= (3, 2, 0)
>>
>> False
>>
>> If we miss anything, it could easily lead to errors like the two
>> abov
On 17/02/2011 22:01, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
For the 3.2 series, I think living with the ambiguity for another 6
months or so (however long it is until 3.2.1 is released) is the
better choice. There are enough parts of the release process that
in
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> For the 3.2 series, I think living with the ambiguity for another 6
> months or so (however long it is until 3.2.1 is released) is the
> better choice. There are enough parts of the release process that
> involve the version number that we *re
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Actually, to me, the confusion is slightly worse, and the reason to change
> slightly stronger, than I initially explained. Python x.y is a version of
> the *language*. CPython x.y.z is an occasional marked release of an
> *implementation*.
>
>
On 2/17/2011 1:36 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
'x.y' is known to be ambiguous and confusing.
Not really.
Actually, to me, the confusion is slightly worse, and the reason to
change slightly stronger, than I initially explained. Python x.y i
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:20, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Agreed. Although better to defer it to 3.3.0 at this point.
+1.0.0 for that.
Yes, it's confusing, but it's going to be even more confusing if it's
called 3.2 sometimes and 3.2.0 sometimes.
--
Lennart Regebro: http://regebro.wordpress.com/
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:52:16 -0800
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:34, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
> >
> > 'x.y' is known to be ambiguous and confusing.
> >
> > In most actual usages, I believe, it refers to the latest
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> 'x.y' is known to be ambiguous and confusing.
Not really.
x.y seems to be saying it is a milestone (major release) and we all
have got used to that convention.
> In most actual usages, I believe, it refers to the latest x.y.z release. On
W
Am 17.02.2011 03:08, schrieb Raymond Hettinger:
>
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>
I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
>>>
>>>
On 2/16/2011 5:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
+1
(I'd have said +0 for the humor of it :).
+0
I actually *am* only +0, since
On Feb 16, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>>> I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> (I'd have said +0 for the humor of it :).
>
> +0
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 12:34 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
- -1
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.p
Le mercredi 16 février 2011 à 14:05 -0500, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> >I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
>
> +1
>
> (I'd have said +0 for the humor of it :).
Should we write +1.0, +1.3 or just +1? Mark can
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>>I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
>
> +1
>
> (I'd have said +0 for the humor of it :).
+0
I actually *am* only +0, since I like the idea in principle, but it
On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
+1
(I'd have said +0 for the humor of it :).
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@p
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:34, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
>
> 'x.y' is known to be ambiguous and confusing.
>
> In most actual usages, I believe, it refers to the latest x.y.z release. On
> the site, the 'x.y' docs are almost always the la
I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
'x.y' is known to be ambiguous and confusing.
In most actual usages, I believe, it refers to the latest x.y.z release.
On the site, the 'x.y' docs are almost always the latest version of the
docs (actually x.y.z+additional fixes)
25 matches
Mail list logo
