On Jun 06, 2012, at 05:55 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>The PEP document currently says it targets “3.x”. I'll leave it in that
>state until we're more confident that the current work will be on track
>for a particular Python release.
>
>Do I need to do anything in particular to be explicit that PEP 3143
Ben Finney writes:
> Georg Brandl writes:
>
> > list of possible features for 3.3 as specified by PEP 398:
> >
> > Candidate PEPs:
> […]
>
> > * PEP 3143: Standard daemon process library
>
> Our porting work will not be done in time for Python 3.3. I will update
> this to target Python 3.4.
The
On 05/02/2012 02:24 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Georg Brandl writes:
>
>> list of possible features for 3.3 as specified by PEP 398:
>>
>> Candidate PEPs:
> […]
>
>> * PEP 3143: Standard daemon process library
I think that http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/daemon.html would a
good addition to t
On 2012-05-02, at 2:46 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
> On 05/01/2012 01:12 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> That would be great! First thing is addressing Guido's concerns from
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117515.html and then
>> handling any issues you found. Not sure if Larr
On 2012-05-01, at 4:12 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> That would be great! First thing is addressing Guido's concerns from
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117515.html and then
> handling any issues you found. Not sure if Larry was asking about this out of
> curiosity or be
On 05/01/2012 01:12 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
That would be great! First thing is addressing Guido's concerns from
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117515.html and
then handling any issues you found. Not sure if Larry was asking about
this out of curiosity or because he too
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 01/05/2012 09:30, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
>
>>> * PEP 3144: IP Address manipulation library
>>
>> This is pretty close to approval. Peter's addressed all the
>> substantive comments that were made regarding the draft API, and he's
>> g
Georg Brandl writes:
> list of possible features for 3.3 as specified by PEP 398:
>
> Candidate PEPs:
[…]
> * PEP 3143: Standard daemon process library
Our porting work will not be done in time for Python 3.3. I will update
this to target Python 3.4.
--
\ “The best mind-altering drug is
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:26, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On 2012-05-01, at 7:57 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
> > With 3.3a3 tagged and the beta stage currently 2 months away, I would
> like
> > to draw your attention to the following list of possible features for 3.3
> > as specified by PEP 398:
> >
> >
Hi,
Le 01/05/2012 09:30, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
* PEP 3144: IP Address manipulation library
This is pretty close to approval. Peter's addressed all the
substantive comments that were made regarding the draft API, and he's
going to provide an update to the PEP shortly that should get it into
a s
Do you know when a more detailed schedule for VS 2012 will be available
(and confirmation regarding XP support)?
Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't publish any release dates. It's ready when
it's ready :-(
I just search again, and it appears that some roadmap has leaked:
http://www.zdnet.com/blo
On 01.05.2012 15:30, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> With 3.3a3 tagged and the beta stage currently 2 months away, I would like
>> to draw your attention to the following list of possible features for 3.3
>> as specified by PEP 398:
>
> A few of those
On 01.05.2012 17:48, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> * PEP 397: Python launcher for Windows
>
> I hope to submit a rewrite of this PEP RSN.
Good to hear.
>> Also, if I missed any obvious candidate PEP or change, please let me know.
>
> A big pending change is the switch to a new Visual Studio relea
On 01.05.2012 16:26, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On 2012-05-01, at 7:57 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
>> With 3.3a3 tagged and the beta stage currently 2 months away, I would like
>> to draw your attention to the following list of possible features for 3.3
>> as specified by PEP 398:
>>
>> Candidate PEPs
* PEP 397: Python launcher for Windows
I hope to submit a rewrite of this PEP RSN.
Also, if I missed any obvious candidate PEP or change, please let me know.
A big pending change is the switch to a new Visual Studio release. The
challenge here is that we need to stop using the outdated VS 2
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 16:43, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2012/5/1 Eli Bendersky :
>> Will this package go through the provisional state mandated by PEP 411 ?
>
> I don't see PEP 411 requiring any module to go through its process.
>
You're right, it doesn't require it. However, since Nick's summar
On May 01, 2012, at 08:24 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>Oops, I missed your reference to PEP 402 and PEP 420. Sorry about that.
>
>It is indeed 420 that would replace 402.
And the older PEP 382. Once 420 is accepted, we should simply reject 382 and
402. At that point, I'll update them to point to 4
On May 01, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> * Breaking out standard library and docs in separate repos?
>
>Our current development infrastructure simply isn't set up to cope
>with this. With both 407 and 413 still open (and not likely to go
>anywhere any time soon), this simply isn't goin
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 07:57, Georg Brandl wrote:
> With 3.3a3 tagged and the beta stage currently 2 months away, I would like
> to draw your attention to the following list of possible features for 3.3
> as specified by PEP 398:
>
> Candidate PEPs:
>
> * PEP 362: Function Signature Object
>
Thi
On 2012-05-01, at 7:57 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> With 3.3a3 tagged and the beta stage currently 2 months away, I would like
> to draw your attention to the following list of possible features for 3.3
> as specified by PEP 398:
>
> Candidate PEPs:
>
> * PEP 362: Function Signature Object
Regardi
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2012/5/1 Eli Bendersky :
>> Will this package go through the provisional state mandated by PEP 411 ?
>
> I don't see PEP 411 requiring any module to go through its process.
Indeed, it's a decision to be made on a case-by-case basis when
2012/5/1 Eli Bendersky :
> Will this package go through the provisional state mandated by PEP 411 ?
I don't see PEP 411 requiring any module to go through its process.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>>> * PEP 3144: IP Address manipulation library
>>
>> This is pretty close to approval. Peter's addressed all the
>> substantive comments that were made regarding the draft API, and he's
>> going to provide an update to the PEP shortly that sho
>> * PEP 3144: IP Address manipulation library
>
> This is pretty close to approval. Peter's addressed all the
> substantive comments that were made regarding the draft API, and he's
> going to provide an update to the PEP shortly that should get it into
> a state where I can mark it as Approved. I
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> With 3.3a3 tagged and the beta stage currently 2 months away, I would like
> to draw your attention to the following list of possible features for 3.3
> as specified by PEP 398:
A few of those are on my plate, soo...
> * PEP 395: Qualified Na
On 5/1/2012 8:11 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On 5/1/2012 7:57 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> With 3.3a3 tagged and the beta stage currently 2 months away, I would like
>> to draw your attention to the following list of possible features for 3.3
>> as specified by PEP 398:
> ...
>
>> Also, if I missed a
On 5/1/2012 7:57 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> With 3.3a3 tagged and the beta stage currently 2 months away, I would like
> to draw your attention to the following list of possible features for 3.3
> as specified by PEP 398:
...
> Also, if I missed any obvious candidate PEP or change, please let me kn
27 matches
Mail list logo
