On 6/10/2010 2:48 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd only
close them *after* the 2.7 release (after determining t
On Jun 10, 2010, at 09:01 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
>The current stumbling block isn't the language itself, it's the lack of
>support from third-party libraries. GSoC is addressing some of these
>issues, but so far we (the PSF, the dev community, anybody else except
>R. David Murray) haven't really
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd only
>> close them *after* the 2.7 release (after determining that they won't apply
>> to 3.x, of course)
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Facundo Batista
wrote:
> Yes, closing the tickets as "won't fix" and tagging them as
> "will-never-happen-in-2.x" or something, is the best combination of
> both worlds: it will clean the tracker and ease further developments,
> and will allow anybody to pick up tho
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd only
> close them *after* the 2.7 release (after determining that they won't apply
> to 3.x, of course).
>
> There aren't that many backport requests, anyway, are there?
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 09, 2010, at 01:15 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
>>> it would still be a good idea to
>>> introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
>>> deviating from the process, but it could be an option consi
Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 6/9/2010 10:42 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>>> Steve Holden wrote
How does throwing away information represent "moving forward"?
>
> 'Closing' a tracker issue does not 'throw away' information', it *adds*
> information as to current intention.
>
>> It's certainly not
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 09, 2010, at 09:13 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>>> Note that Python 2.7 will be *maintained* for a very long time, which
>>> should satisfy those folks who still require Python 2. Anybody on
>>> older (and currently unmaintained) versions of P
Am 09.06.2010 05:58, schrieb Alexandre Vassalotti:
Is there is any plan for a 2.8 release? If not, I will go through the
tracker and close outstanding backport requests of 3.x features to
2.x.
Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd
only close them *after* the 2.7
It might be useful to copy the identifiers and URLs of all the backport
request tickets into some other repository, or to create some unique
state in roundup for these. Rationale: it's almost certain that if the
existing Python core maintainers won't evolve Python 2.X past 2.7, some
other group
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:40, Eric Smith wrote:
>> On 6/9/2010 4:07 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Closed issues are not lost. They can still be searched and the result
>> downloaded.
>>
>>> A keyword would do. Please don't add a status or something like that,
>>> though.
>>
>> I believe Type:
> On 6/9/2010 4:07 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Closed issues are not lost. They can still be searched and the result
> downloaded.
>
>> A keyword would do. Please don't add a status or something like that,
>> though.
>
> I believe Type: feature request; Version: 2.7; Resolution wont fix
> sho
On 6/9/2010 10:42 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> Steve Holden wrote
How does throwing away information represent "moving forward"?
'Closing' a tracker issue does not 'throw away' information', it *adds*
information as to current intention.
It's certainly not fair to require all core developer
On 6/9/2010 4:07 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Chris McDonough writes:
> It might be useful to copy the identifiers and URLs of all the backport
> request tickets into some other repository, or to create some unique
> state in roundup for these.
Closed issues are not lost. They can s
On Jun 8, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/6/8 Alexandre Vassalotti :
>> Is there is any plan for a 2.8 release? If not, I will go through the
>> tracker and close outstanding backport requests of 3.x features to
>> 2.x.
>
> Not from the core development team.
The current plan
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 08:12, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 09, 2010, at 04:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>>Many of them are not keen on having to maintain Python2 for much
>>longer, but some of them may have assets codified in Python2
>>or interests based Python2 that they'll want to keep for
>>mo
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 09, 2010, at 09:13 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
>>Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>>> Note that Python 2.7 will be *maintained* for a very long time, which
>>> should satisfy those folks who still require Python 2. Anybody on
>>> older (and curre
On Jun 09, 2010, at 09:13 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> Note that Python 2.7 will be *maintained* for a very long time, which
>> should satisfy those folks who still require Python 2. Anybody on
>> older (and currently unmaintained) versions of Python 2 will not care
>> about
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 09, 2010, at 04:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> >Many of them are not keen on having to maintain Python2 for much
> >longer, but some of them may have assets codified in Python2
> >or interests based Python2 that they'll want to keep for
> >more than just another 5 y
On Jun 09, 2010, at 04:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>Many of them are not keen on having to maintain Python2 for much
>longer, but some of them may have assets codified in Python2
>or interests based Python2 that they'll want to keep for
>more than just another 5 years.
>
>E.g. we still have custom
Michael Foord wrote:
>> How does throwing away information represent "moving forward"?
>
> I'm inclined to agree. There is no *need* to close these tickets now.
>
>> I have to say I am surprised by the current lack of momentum behind 3.x,
>> but I do know users who consider that their current inv
On Jun 09, 2010, at 01:15 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
>> it would still be a good idea to
>> introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
>> deviating from the process, but it could be an option considering that
>> 2.7 is the las
On 09/06/2010 13:56, Steve Holden wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
On 9 June 2010 07:26, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:15 -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
it would still be a good idea to
introduce some of
Paul Moore wrote:
> On 9 June 2010 07:26, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:15 -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran
>>> wrote:
it would still be a good idea to
introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
d
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On that basis I'm +1 on Alexandre's proposal. A 3rd party planning on
> working on a 2.8 release (not that I think such a party currently
> exists) can step up and extract the relevant tickets for their later
> reference if they feel the need. L
On 9 June 2010 07:26, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:15 -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
>> > it would still be a good idea to
>> > introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
>> > deviating from the process,
Chris McDonough writes:
> It might be useful to copy the identifiers and URLs of all the backport
> request tickets into some other repository, or to create some unique
> state in roundup for these.
A keyword would do. Please don't add a status or something like that,
though.
__
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:15 -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> > it would still be a good idea to
> > introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
> > deviating from the process, but it could be an option considering that
> > 2.7 i
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> it would still be a good idea to
> introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
> deviating from the process, but it could be an option considering that
> 2.7 is the last of 2.x release.
I disagree.
If there are going to
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
wrote:
> Is there is any plan for a 2.8 release? If not, I will go through the
> tracker and close outstanding backport requests of 3.x features to
You mean, simply mark them as Wont-Fix and close. I doubt, if this is
desirable action to take.
2010/6/8 Alexandre Vassalotti :
> Is there is any plan for a 2.8 release? If not, I will go through the
> tracker and close outstanding backport requests of 3.x features to
> 2.x.
Not from the core development team.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Python-De
Is there is any plan for a 2.8 release? If not, I will go through the
tracker and close outstanding backport requests of 3.x features to
2.x.
-- Alexandre
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-de
32 matches
Mail list logo
