On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another thing to keep in mind with the whole shelve/dbm.any argument
> is that for 3.1 there is nothing saying we can't change shelve and the
> dbm package to allow 3rd-party code to register with the dbm package
> such that
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Jesus Cea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> Also, the reason for removal may yet disappear
>>> if jcrea steps in an continues to make updates.
>>
>> OK, but none of his changes have received a cod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> While that will still be visible to some degree due to the presence of
> the 2.x version of the bsddb code in Python 2.6, I don't think it will
> be quite the same as it would have been with the 3.x version also being
> readily av
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> I think this should be deferred to Py3.1.
> This decision was not widely discussed and I think it likely that some
> users will
> be surprised and dismayed. The release
> candidate seems to be the wrong time to
> yank this out (in part because of the surprise
> factor) a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Also, the reason for removal may yet disappear
>> if jcrea steps in an continues to make updates.
>
> OK, but none of his changes have received a code review, so if we are
> going to go down the whole "disciplined" route about i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michele Simionato wrote:
> I do not use bsddb directly, but I use shelve which on Linux usually
> takes advantage of bsddb. Does removing bsddb mean that
> I will not be able to read shelve files written with Python 2.5
> with Python 3.0? That would be
Michele> I do not use bsddb directly, but I use shelve which on Linux
Michele> usually takes advantage of bsddb. Does removing bsddb mean that
Michele> I will not be able to read shelve files written with Python 2.5
Michele> with Python 3.0? That would be quite disturbing to me.
C
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The release
> candidate seems to be the wrong time to
> yank this out (in part because of the surprise
> factor) and in part because I think the change
> silently affects shelve performance so that the
> impact may be si
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this should be deferred to Py3.1.
> This decision was not widely discussed and I think it likely that some users
> will
> be surprised and dismayed.
Perhaps, but that could be said about almost any module that h
I think this should be deferred to Py3.1.
This decision was not widely discussed and
I think it likely that some users will
be surprised and dismayed. The release
candidate seems to be the wrong time to
yank this out (in part because of the surprise
factor) and in part because I think the chan
10 matches
Mail list logo
