I haven't had any comment on this patch, are there any objections?
http://bugs.python.org/issue8832
K
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/option
On 09/06/10 05:58, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
I haven‘t had any comment on this patch, are there any objections?
http://bugs.python.org/issue8832
Sounds good to me. One of the nice things about the context management
protocol is that it doesn't interfere with any code that isn't
explicitl
There are two opposite issues in the bug tracker:
#7475: codecs missing: base64 bz2 hex zlib ...
-> reintroduce the codecs removed from Python3
#8838: Remove codecs.readbuffer_encode()
-> remove the last part of the removed codecs
If I understood correctly, the question is: should co
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
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
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.
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, 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
