Steve Holden Wrote:
> We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase
> the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think
> about a broader campaign to increase the quality of the python 3
> libraries. I find it very annoying that the #python IRC group sti
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Thorne wrote:
>> We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase
>> the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think
>> about a broader campaign to increase the quality of the python 3
>> libraries. I find it very
I thought that some arguments to test_support.run_unittest would be useful.
Would like to hear your feedback before making anything.
http://bugs.python.org/issue9028
--
anatoly t.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:44 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Thorne wrote:
>>> We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase
>>> the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think
>>> about a broader campaign to i
On Jun 18, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
>Lest the readership think that the PSF is unaware of this issue, allow
>me to point out that we have already partially funded this effort, and
>are still offering R. David Murray some further matching funds if he can
>raise sponsorship to complete
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:19:37 pm Jesse Noller wrote:
> Awesome. I plan on wasting as much money on the useless effort of
> moving python 3 forward as humanly possible.
I'm sorry, but if that's sarcasm, it's far too subtle for me :(
--
Steven D'Aprano
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:19:37 pm Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>> Awesome. I plan on wasting as much money on the useless effort of
>> moving python 3 forward as humanly possible.
>
> I'm sorry, but if that's sarcasm, it's far too subtle for me :(
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 07:44, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Thorne
> wrote:
> >> We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase
> >> the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think
> >> about a broader campaign t
Replying en masse to save bandwidth here...
Barry Warsaw writes:
> We know it, we have extensively discussed how to fix it, we have IMO a good
> design, and we even have someone willing and able to tackle the problem. We
> need to find a sufficient source of funding to enable him to do the work
On 18/06/2010 16:09, l...@rmi.net wrote:
Replying en masse to save bandwidth here...
Barry Warsaw writes:
We know it, we have extensively discussed how to fix it, we have IMO a good
design, and we even have someone willing and able to tackle the problem. We
need to find a sufficient sourc
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2010-06-11 - 2010-06-18)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
2777 open (+43) / 18070 closed (+12) / 20847 total (+55)
Open issues with patches: 1122
Ave
On 18.06.10 17:04, Brian Curtin wrote:
> [...]
> 2. no code coverage (test/user story/rfc/pep)
>
>
> If you know of a way to incorporate code coverage tools and metrics into
> the current process, I believe a number of people would be interested.
> There currently exists some coverage tool t
> Python 3.0 was *declared* to be an experimental release, and by most
> standards 3.1 (in terms of the core language and functionality) was a
> solid release.
>
> Any reasonable expectation about Python 3 adoption predicted that it
> would take years, and would include going through a phase of
On 18/06/2010 18:22, l...@rmi.net wrote:
Python 3.0 was *declared* to be an experimental release, and by most
standards 3.1 (in terms of the core language and functionality) was a
solid release.
Any reasonable expectation about Python 3 adoption predicted that it
would take years, and would incl
Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
> 2010/6/17 Bill Janssen :
>
> > There's a related meta-issue having to do with antique protocols.
>
> Can I know what meta-issue are you talking about exactly?
Giampaolo, I believe that you and I have already discussed this on one
of the FTP issues.
Bill
2010/6/18 Bill Janssen :
> Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
>
>> 2010/6/17 Bill Janssen :
>>
>> > There's a related meta-issue having to do with antique protocols.
>>
>> Can I know what meta-issue are you talking about exactly?
>
> Giampaolo, I believe that you and I have already discussed this on one
> of
I wasn't calling Python 3 a turd. I was trying to show
the strangeness of the logic behind your rationalization.
And failing badly... (maybe I should have used "tar ball"?)
What I'm suggesting is that extreme caution be exercised from
this point forward with all things 3.X-related. Whether you
At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +, l...@rmi.net wrote:
So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things
on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is
prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in
this regard, the implications of the
On 6/18/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Dörwald wrote:
http://coverage.livinglogic.de/
I am a bit puzzled as to the meaning of the gray/red/green bars since
the correlation between coverage % and bars is not very high.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Pytho
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +, l...@rmi.net wrote:
>>
>> So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things
>> on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is
>> prime among these: for all the talk here ab
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 13:53, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 6/18/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Dörwald wrote:
>
>> http://coverage.livinglogic.de/
>
> I am a bit puzzled as to the meaning of the gray/red/green bars since the
> correlation between coverage % and bars is not very high.
Gray is lines that are
On 18/06/2010 19:52, l...@rmi.net wrote:
I wasn't calling Python 3 a turd. I was trying to show
the strangeness of the logic behind your rationalization.
And failing badly... (maybe I should have used "tar ball"?)
I didn't make myself clear. The expected disappointment I was referring
to
On 6/18/2010 10:24 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
http://jessenoller.com/2010/05/20/announcing-python-sprint-sponsorship/
This does not specify what expenses you are thinking of covering. Food
is the most obvious.
Anyway, this got me to think about offering my house at a site for US
east coast mi
Michael Foord:
> Python 3.0 was *declared* to be an experimental release, and by most
> standards 3.1 (in terms of the core language and functionality) was a solid
> release.
That looks to me like an after-the-event rationalization. The
release note for Python 3.0 (and the "What's new") gives
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 6/18/2010 10:24 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>> http://jessenoller.com/2010/05/20/announcing-python-sprint-sponsorship/
>
> This does not specify what expenses you are thinking of covering. Food is
> the most obvious.
>
> Anyway, this got me to
On Jun 18, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
> I'm still baffled as to how a bug in the cgi module (along with the
> acknowledged email problems) is such a big deal. Was it reported and then
> languished in the bug tracker? That would be bad ion its own but if it was
> only recently disco
On 18/06/2010 23:51, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Jun 18, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
I'm still baffled as to how a bug in the cgi module (along with the
acknowledged email problems) is such a big deal. Was it reported and then
languished in the bug tracker? That would be bad io
On 6/18/2010 6:51 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
There has been a disappointing
lack of bug reports across the board for 3.x.
Here is one from this week involving the interaction of array and
bytearray. It needs a comment from someone who can understand the C-API
based patch, which is beyond me
28 matches
Mail list logo
