On 6/12/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:00 AM 6/13/2006 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> >IMO, the better way is exactly this you depicted: move the official
> >development
> >tree into this Externals/ dir *within* Python's repository. Off that, you can
> >have your own branch fo
On 6/12/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 02:00 AM 6/13/2006 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:>IMO, the better way is exactly this you depicted: move the official>development>tree into this Externals/ dir *within* Python's repository. Off that, you can
>have your own branch for experimenta
At 01:49 AM 6/13/2006 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > This should definitely be explained to authors who are donating
> > libraries to the stdlib, because from my perspective it seemed to me
> > that I was graciously volunteering to be responsible for *all* the work
> > rel
At 02:00 AM 6/13/2006 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>IMO, the better way is exactly this you depicted: move the official
>development
>tree into this Externals/ dir *within* Python's repository. Off that, you can
>have your own branch for experimental work, from which extract your own
>releases, and
Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Control isn't the issue; it's ensuring that fixes don't get lost or
> reverted from either the external version or the stdlib version.
> Control
> is merely a means to that end. If we can accomplish that via some
> other
> means (e.g. an Externals/ subt
[Phillip J. Eby]
>> Actually, I started out with "please" -- twice, after having previously
>> asked please in advance. I've also seen lots of messages on Python-Dev
>> where Tim Peters wrote about having wasted time due to other folks not
>> following established procedures, and I tried to emulat
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> This should definitely be explained to authors who are donating
> libraries to the stdlib, because from my perspective it seemed to me
> that I was graciously volunteering to be responsible for *all* the work
> related to wsgiref.
It's not only about python-wide changes. It
At 12:09 AM 6/13/2006 +0100, Steve Holden wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > Anyway, will anyone who was offended by the original message please
> pretend
> > that it was delightfully witty and written by Tim instead? Thanks. ;)
> >
>I wonder what the hell's up with Tim. He's been really crabby l
At 12:56 AM 6/13/2006 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >> I just want changes made by the Python core developers to be reflected in
> >> the external releases.
> >
> > and presumably, the reason for that isn't that you care about your ego,
> > but that you care about your users
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> [posting back to python-dev in case others also perceived my original
> message as impolite]
>
> At 01:25 PM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>Oh, and the tone of your email was *not* polite. Messages starting
>>with "I wasted an hour of my time" are not polite
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> I just want changes made by the Python core developers to be reflected in
>> the external releases.
>
> and presumably, the reason for that isn't that you care about your ego,
> but that you care about your users.
For that, yes. However, the reason to desire that no chan
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Actually it's both irrelevant and insulting.
>
> I just want changes made by the Python core developers to be reflected in
> the external releases. I'd be more than happy to move the external release
> to the Python SVN server if that would make it happen.
>
I think th
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I just want changes made by the Python core developers to be reflected in
> the external releases.
and presumably, the reason for that isn't that you care about your ego,
but that you care about your users.
___
Python-Dev ma
On 6/12/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:> I'd still rather have a Packages/ directory, but beggars can't be > choosers.there's plenty of time to work on that for 2.6...I have started a thread on python-3000 to try to get a PEP pulled together to solidify what we wa
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I'd still rather have a Packages/ directory, but beggars can't be
> choosers.
there's plenty of time to work on that for 2.6...
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
At 03:42 PM 6/12/2006 -0400, Edward C. Jones wrote:
>Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > developers contributing code without wanting
> > to give up control are the problem.
>
>That hits the nail on the head.
Actually it's both irrelevant and insulting.
I just want changes made by the Python core devel
A01:01 PM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>I think I pretty much did already -- going forward, I'd like to see
>that contributing something to the stdlib means that from then on
>maintenance is done using the same policies and guidelines as the rest
>of the stdlib (which are pretty conserv
[posting back to python-dev in case others also perceived my original
message as impolite]
At 01:25 PM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Oh, and the tone of your email was *not* polite. Messages starting
>with "I wasted an hour of my time" are not polite pretty much by
>definition.
Actua
Paul Moore wrote:
> This is purely speculation (and fairly negative speculation at that!)
> but I'd advocate caution for a while yet. Maybe ActiveState or
> Enthought could provide some input on how/if sumo bundles can address
> the need to upgrade "parts" of the distribution?
We at Enthought are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:12:20 -0400
"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, Barry's approach to the email package makes good sense to me,
> and I'd use it, except that SVN externals can't sync individual
> files. I'd have to create Lib/wsgi
On 6/12/06, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO we should
> require all modules with version constraints or external master source
> to have comments indicating this *in the code*, at the top of every
> source file, so that someone writing a patch or bugfix knows what the
> requirements
On 6/12/06, Edward C. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > developers contributing code without wanting
> > to give up control are the problem.
>
> That hits the nail on the head. If something is added to the standard
> library, it becomes part of Python and must be cont
On 6/12/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should get serious about slimming down the core distribution
> > and having a separate group of people maintain sumo bundles containing
> > Python and lots of other stuff.
>
> there are already lots of peo
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:12:20PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> encountered this myself. I *have* seen some developers make spurious
> "cleanups" to working code that breaks compatibility with older Python
> versions, though, just not in wsgiref.
Note that the standard library policy has alwa
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> developers contributing code without wanting
> to give up control are the problem.
That hits the nail on the head. If something is added to the standard
library, it becomes part of Python and must be controlled by whoever
controls Python. Otherwise there will be chaos
At 11:23 AM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>developers contributing code without wanting
>to give up control are the problem.
Control isn't the issue; it's ensuring that fixes don't get lost or
reverted from either the external version or the stdlib version. Control
is merely a means
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:42:44AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> standard library code is just more of a maintenance burden. Maybe we
> should get serious about slimming down the core distribution and
> having a separate group of people maintain sumo bundles containing
> Python and lots of other
At 10:42 AM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Sure, but this doesn't require the draconian "I-and-I-only own the
>code" approach that you have.
If there were only one version and directory tree to maintain to do both
the Python trunk and the external version, I wouldn't mind other people
On 6/12/06, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> >>> I personally think that, going forward, external maintainers should
> >>> not be granted privileges such as are being granted by PEP 360, and
> >>> an inclusion of a package in the Python tree should be considere
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> I personally think that, going forward, external maintainers should
>>> not be granted privileges such as are being granted by PEP 360, and
>>> an inclusion of a package in the Python tree should be considered a
>>> "fork" for all practical purposes. If an external deve
On Monday 12 June 2006 13:42, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Maybe we
> should get serious about slimming down the core distribution and
> having a separate group of people maintain sumo bundles containing
> Python and lots of other stuff.
+1
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
___
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Maybe we should get serious about slimming down the core distribution
> and having a separate group of people maintain sumo bundles containing
> Python and lots of other stuff.
there are already lots of people doing that (most Linux distributions add
stuff, directly
or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:08:52 -0400
"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I won't claim to speak for the other authors, I would guess
> that they have the same reason for wanting that status as I do: to be
> able to maintain an external r
On 6/12/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:43 AM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >On 6/12/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>At 09:04 AM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> >IOW I think PEP 360 is an unfortunate historic accident, and we would
At 09:43 AM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>On 6/12/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>At 09:04 AM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> >IOW I think PEP 360 is an unfortunate historic accident, and we would
>> >be better off without it. I propose that we don't add to i
35 matches
Mail list logo
