2010/2/23 Dirkjan Ochtman :
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 01:06, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I thought we decided not to have a 2to3 repository at all, but let this
>> live in the Python trunk exclusively.
>
> That would be fine with me, I just remembered that Benjamin would like
> to start using hg s
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 01:06, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I thought we decided not to have a 2to3 repository at all, but let this
> live in the Python trunk exclusively.
That would be fine with me, I just remembered that Benjamin would like
to start using hg sooner and having it as a separate rep
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 00:55, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Ah, this shouldn't be used at all for anything (except for studying how
>> Mercurial works). Along with the cpython repository, it is Dirkjan's
>> test conversion. Even if it survived the ultimate migration (which it
>> probably won't),
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 00:55, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Ah, this shouldn't be used at all for anything (except for studying how
> Mercurial works). Along with the cpython repository, it is Dirkjan's
> test conversion. Even if it survived the ultimate migration (which it
> probably won't), it wou
> Sorry, I meant "pull from". I want an updated snapshot of 2to3 for the
> benchmark suite, and I'm looking for the best place to grab it from.
The 2to3 code currently still lives in the subversion sandbox.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Py
>>> Should the 2to3 hg repository be deleted, then?
>> Which one? To my knowledge, there is no official 2to3 repository yet.
>> When the switchover happens, 2to3 should not be converted to its own hg
>> repository, yes.
>
> This one: http://hg.python.org/2to3
Ah, this shouldn't be used at all for
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 18:38, Martin Geisler wrote:
> My dissertation is due this Friday(!), so I will not have much time to
> look at EOL issues this week (as usual). But please give it a spin
> anyway and let us hear what you think!
I've got about 48 more hours of PyCon sprints ahead of me, so
Dirkjan Ochtman writes:
Hi everybody!
I hope you have fun at PyCon :-)
> As for the current state of The Dreaded EOL Issue, there is an
> extension which seems to be provide all the needed features, but it
> appears there are some nasty corner cases still to be fixed. Martin
> Geisler has been
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 17:05, Collin Winter wrote:
> Sorry, I meant "pull from". I want an updated snapshot of 2to3 for the
> benchmark suite, and I'm looking for the best place to grab it from.
Well, the server that has all the stuff for doing the conversions has
annoyingly been down for about
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 16:09, Collin Winter wrote:
>>> So the consensus is that 2to3 should be pulled out of the main Python
>>> tree? Should the 2to3 hg repository be deleted, then?
>>
>> Wouldn't the former be rea
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 16:09, Collin Winter wrote:
>> So the consensus is that 2to3 should be pulled out of the main Python
>> tree? Should the 2to3 hg repository be deleted, then?
>
> Wouldn't the former be reason to officialize the hg repository,
> instead of deleting
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 16:09, Collin Winter wrote:
> So the consensus is that 2to3 should be pulled out of the main Python
> tree? Should the 2to3 hg repository be deleted, then?
Wouldn't the former be reason to officialize the hg repository,
instead of deleting it?
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:27 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> The other thing is that we will loose some vcs history and some
>>> history granularity by switching development to the trunk version,
>>> since just the svnmerged revisions will be converted.
>>
>> So the consensus is that 2to3 should
>> The other thing is that we will loose some vcs history and some
>> history granularity by switching development to the trunk version,
>> since just the svnmerged revisions will be converted.
>
> So the consensus is that 2to3 should be pulled out of the main Python
> tree?
Not sure what you me
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/2/13 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>> I still think that the best approach for projects to use 2to3 is to run
>> 2to3 at install time from a single-source release. For that, projects
>> will have to adjust to whatever bugs certain 2to3 release
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:14 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> >> But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
> >> started, but who, other than the committers, actually accesses the 2to3
> >> repo?
> >
> > It's used in 3to2 for example.
>
> That doesn't really seem to be the c
On Feb 13, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/2/13 Dirkjan Ochtman :
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 17:14, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> Does hg support an equivalent of 'bzr split'?
>>>
>>> % bzr split --help
>>> Purpose: Split a subdirectory of a tree into a separate tree.
>>> Usage: bz
> The other thing is that we will loose some vcs history and some
> history granularity by switching development to the trunk version,
> since just the svnmerged revisions will be converted.
I suppose it might be possible to fake the history of Lib/lib2to3 with
commits that didn't actually happen,
2010/2/13 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>>> But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
>>> started, but who, other than the committers, actually accesses the 2to3
>>> repo?
>>
>> It's used in 3to2 for example.
>
> That doesn't really seem to be the case. AFAICT, 3to2 is a hg
> reposit
2010/2/13 Dirkjan Ochtman :
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 17:14, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Does hg support an equivalent of 'bzr split'?
>>
>> % bzr split --help
>> Purpose: Split a subdirectory of a tree into a separate tree.
>> Usage: bzr split TREE
>>
>> Options:
>> --usage Show usage messag
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 17:14, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Does hg support an equivalent of 'bzr split'?
>
> % bzr split --help
> Purpose: Split a subdirectory of a tree into a separate tree.
> Usage: bzr split TREE
>
> Options:
> --usage Show usage message and options.
> -v, --verbose Displ
>> But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
>> started, but who, other than the committers, actually accesses the 2to3
>> repo?
>
> It's used in 3to2 for example.
That doesn't really seem to be the case. AFAICT, 3to2 is a hg
repository, with no inherent connection to the
2010/2/13 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>> I personally like 2to3 in a separate repo because it fits well with my
>> view that 2to3 is an extra application that happens to also be
>> distributed with python.
>
> But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
> started, but who, other than
On Feb 13, 2010, at 1:31 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
IMO, it is realistic to predict that this will not actually happen. If
we can agree to give up the 2to3 sandbox, we should incorporate
find_pattern into the tree, and per
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan :
>> Of course, PEP 291 could do with a list of 2.5 and 2.6 specific features
>> first...
>
> I think that section is rather pointless to keep updated, since a good
> list can be found in the what's new documents. What people really need
> to do is
> I personally like 2to3 in a separate repo because it fits well with my
> view that 2to3 is an extra application that happens to also be
> distributed with python.
But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
started, but who, other than the committers, actually accesses the
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> IMO, it is realistic to predict that this will not actually happen. If
>>> we can agree to give up the 2to3 sandbox, we should incorporate
>>> find_pattern into the tree, and perhaps test.py as well.
>> I vote on giving up the 2to3 san
2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan :
> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan :
>>> Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, "Martin v. Löwis"
wrote:
I vote on giving up the 2to3 sandbox.
>>> One other point - is there a Python 2.6 backwards compatibility
>>> restriction
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan :
>> Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> I vote on giving up the 2to3 sandbox.
>> One other point - is there a Python 2.6 backwards compatibility
>> restriction on 2to3 at the moment? If there isn't,
2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan :
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I vote on giving up the 2to3 sandbox.
>
> One other point - is there a Python 2.6 backwards compatibility
> restriction on 2to3 at the moment? If there isn't, should there be?
I try to kee
2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan :
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> IMO, it is realistic to predict that this will not actually happen. If
>>> we can agree to give up the 2to3 sandbox, we should incorporate
>>> find_pattern into the tree, and perhaps test.
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I vote on giving up the 2to3 sandbox.
One other point - is there a Python 2.6 backwards compatibility
restriction on 2to3 at the moment? If there isn't, should there be?
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> IMO, it is realistic to predict that this will not actually happen. If
>> we can agree to give up the 2to3 sandbox, we should incorporate
>> find_pattern into the tree, and perhaps test.py as well.
>
> I vote on givi
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Why even keep 2to3 in the sandbox? It should be mature enough now to be
>> maintained directly in the tree.
>
> I think the original plan was to make standalone releases, so that
> people could upgrade their installation from a newer rele
> Why even keep 2to3 in the sandbox? It should be mature enough now to be
> maintained directly in the tree.
I think the original plan was to make standalone releases, so that
people could upgrade their installation from a newer release of 2to3.
IMO, it is realistic to predict that this will not
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 09:39, Georg Brandl wrote:
> No, it does not. This is also a concern for the Python 2 -> Python 3 merging,
> where (I think) we decided not to have shared history. Transplant already
I don't think this is similar to 2 vs. 3, because 2 vs. 3 are full
branching (so you cou
Am 09.02.2010 04:39, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 2010/2/8 Dirkjan Ochtman :
>>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
>>> Got any particular projects in mind?
>>
>> 2to3.
>
> Does Mercur
Am 09.02.2010 04:47, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
> 2010/2/8 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>> 2010/2/8 Dirkjan Ochtman :
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson
wrote:
> Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
Got any particular proje
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 13:59, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> The only moving was moving a lot of the files into a lib2to3
> directory. It would be nice if the hg history could be preserved for
> those files.
Please see if hg.python.org/2to3 would satisfy your needs.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
2010/2/10 Dirkjan Ochtman :
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:03, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> What do you mean by moved? I don't it has ever moved around in the sandbox.
>
> IIRC it was moved into the sandbox from some other location at some point?
r52858 | guido.van.rossum | 2006-11-29 11:38:40 -0600
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:03, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> What do you mean by moved? I don't it has ever moved around in the sandbox.
IIRC it was moved into the sandbox from some other location at some point?
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
Python-Dev mailing lis
2010/2/9 Dirkjan Ochtman :
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 04:47, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> I don't believe so. My plan was to manually sync updates or use subrepos.
>
> Using subrepos should work well for this.
Excellent.
>
> It turned out that my local copy of the Subversion repository
> contained
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 04:47, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> I don't believe so. My plan was to manually sync updates or use subrepos.
Using subrepos should work well for this.
It turned out that my local copy of the Subversion repository
contained the Python dir only, so I'm now syncing a full copy
2010/2/8 "Martin v. Löwis" :
> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 2010/2/8 Dirkjan Ochtman :
>>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
>>> Got any particular projects in mind?
>>
>> 2to3.
>
> Does Mercurial even support merg
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/2/8 Dirkjan Ochtman :
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>> Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
>> Got any particular projects in mind?
>
> 2to3.
Does Mercurial even support merge tracking the way we are doing it for
2010/2/8 Dirkjan Ochtman :
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
>
> Got any particular projects in mind?
2to3.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:58, Mark Hammond wrote:
> Isn't setting a date premature while outstanding issues remain without a
> timetable for their resolution?
If we set a date, that would imply a timetable for their resolution.
> See http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EOLTranslationPlan#TODO - of
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> How about a week after, so we have more time to adjust release procedures?
Sounds fine to me.
> Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
Got any particular projects in mind?
> Also I think we should have some document (
Hi Dirkjan,
On 8/02/2010 8:35 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
...
In fact, a few weeks ago I talked to Brett and we figured that we
should probably pin down a deadline. We discussed aiming at May 1, and
at this time I think that should be feasible. That also seems to
coincide with the release of 2.7
2010/2/7 Dirkjan Ochtman :
> It's been a long time!
Thank you very much for staying on this task! I'm still excited.
>
> In fact, a few weeks ago I talked to Brett and we figured that we
> should probably pin down a deadline. We discussed aiming at May 1, and
> at this time I think that should be
It's been a long time!
So for the past few weeks, Mercurial crew member Patrick Mezard has
been hunting for the ugly bug in hgsubversion that I'd previously been
looking at, and it finally got fixed. A new bug popped up, but then we
managed to fix that, too (thanks to the PSF for partially funding
51 matches
Mail list logo
