On 10 April 2014 02:58, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> What will a lack of provided installers do to Windows support? It's
>> easy enough on Linux to say "either build it from source, or let your
>> upstream package provider build it for you", but AIUI, most Windows
>> users want to get a ready-made
On 10.04.2014 04:16, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Yeah, this was mentioned a few times. I quipped to Nick that Red Hat's
> biggest contribution might be to take over the Windows Installer, but
> didn't bite. :-)
>
> But there's always the PSF. We may try to find some folks we trust with
> relevant ex
Le 10/04/2014 04:09, Senthil Kumaran a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson mailto:benja...@python.org>> wrote:
I consider the security enhancement/feature question to be in the domain
of PEP 466. If security stuff lands in the 2.7 branch, it will get
released
On 9 Apr 2014 22:11, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
>>
>> He implied that it's currently the plan or
In article
,
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> > It's not that I don't think Windows installers are important, but rather
> > that Martin has indicated he is (completely reasonably) not interested
> > in indefinitely making 2.7 installers.
> Y
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson >
> > wrote:
> > > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours,
> >
> > Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson >
> > wrote:
> > > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours,
> >
> > Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 19:09, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> >> Instead dealing 2.7 will just be completely optional for core developers
>
> I was worried about this part, that if bug-fixes are
> optionally back-ported, then we may end up a inconsi
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
>
> He implied that it's currently the plan or that it should be the plan?
>
As you might understand, we c
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> I consider the security enhancement/feature question to be in the domain
> of PEP 466. If security stuff lands in the 2.7 branch, it will get
> released eventually is all I'm saying.
>
Thanks for the response.
>> Instead dealing 2.7 wil
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
>
> He implied that it's currently the plan or that it should be the plan?
>
As you might understand, we c
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:46, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
>
> > Instead dealing 2.7 will just be completely optional for core
> > developers. (The much anticipated vendor support arrives at this point.)
> >
>
> Could you clarify your thoug
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
> > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours,
>
> Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc, or does that violate other
> policies?
I'm not aware that two digit
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> Instead dealing 2.7 will just be completely optional for core
> developers. (The much anticipated vendor support arrives at this point.)
>
Could you clarify your thoughts a bit on the "completely optional" part.
What if vendors take a rea
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours,
Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc, or does that violate other policies?
What will a lack of provided installers do to Windows support? It's
easy enough on Linux to sa
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
He implied that it's currently the plan or that it should be the plan?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https
I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> This email is to share idea that has been bouncing around in my head for
> a while about 2.7 releases. Guido's last email containing notes from the
> language summit ma
This email is to share idea that has been bouncing around in my head for
a while about 2.7 releases. Guido's last email containing notes from the
language summit made me think it's time to propose it.
We'll keep doing what we're currently doing for another year, making
normal bug fix releases with
18 matches
Mail list logo
