-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:04 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:04:42AM +, Barry Warsaw wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed
version
control system is to help break the logjam on
le. Meaning, if a tracker wasn't
written in Python it had to be way better than those written in Python.
As for dvcs, I think git would have to show overwhelming advantage
over bzr or hg to be considered.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
opment and user community would
certainly apply to the Python-based dvcses.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSQ9ERHEjvBPtnXfVAQLGEgP/VTjZLo4FJQ3oUGZp5eGHJdvkhOkmJPX+
bKhw09eoR6yuKbcRcPkqjqU9z8T4+gCdrOsiyNE98/Cr14xtAr2tYq2zEj0iFb/L
snjVaZuelrlzHV3V6avA
mean in more detail?
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSQ9EnHEjvBPtnXfVAQLAQgP9HFGmvq3dq60oUryeiVXI2sgWQvUXbYzk
6Nhg796sPyGwzuO8PoLq6CvxNzqvah25KMznjOxx0MpMzhSKEgJPJwxkBLpIYJUy
Enz3JrLt+r3do0pNLvgkAz9gENh90QLWt1amVvvt2c8ahua2hGpxPN4Y0YUFbeIf
bbxP7bcvD+U
ic/images/ico_folder.gif
I think Martin fixed these; at least I don't see this problem any more.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSQ9ogHEjvBPtnXfVAQKSiAP/Y30HaPDs54GaeB1P+e2CIpQANUlsEm5d
ePdfPvSKKXbKGjlYI6jsHdT75oT2q0BVo5DDGN6YcU3oISIIZF6X9AP86LX
with updates, right?
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSQ9p2nEjvBPtnXfVAQJoVgP+JLJHK9FRK0xsLtiMSW2BrrnYuCjwhidX
yRdNK6oE/hiUKGCjO8G+IptqsDJl5MxFKYZ7RAhK9HjCsjoLW/aQc3zAJuwb+dyX
fowpwrBV1pPRTB2IP840ImEATfufb8Mwzo5H8G9k+dx1BTHjY4o5JLQXFREBUNuu
/static/images/ico_folder.gif
I think Martin fixed these; at least I don't see this problem any
more.
Right - but only so through a --prefix option to serve-branches. If
you make it a reboot-safe service, be sure to copy this option.
Will do, thanks.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
Exactly the same way 2.5, trunk and 3.0 are, yes.
Beauty, thanks.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSQ98J3EjvBPtnXfVAQLD0AQAhvDoJ85HtO0o/KxeU
#x27; to the lowest thread (i.e. trunk), pull in those changes,
and then using 'bzr up-thread' merge them into all the threads above.
Then I go back to hacking.
There are all kinds of scenarios based on this one, and I hope the
above makes sense. It's things like this (and
o me. =)
It should though. In Bazaar, a bundle is essentially the revisions in
your branch that are packaged to transport over RFC 2821 and 2822. :)
That opens up some really cool abilities, such as sending a bundle to
a buildbot or patch queue manager for automated testing.
- -Barry
is all the time with larger feature development. I
can have 4 or 5 threads in a typical loom, though I know of people who
use many more. It makes developing depending features actually
manageable.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSQ+Cm3EjvBPt
hings one way or the other. OTOH, it would be
nice if at least we always add our own identifier (initials, nick,
email address) and a date to the XXX so we at least know who was
talking about what.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
s that if you do see an occasional text conflict, you can
usually re-merge with a different algorithm to clear things up.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRBXVnEjvBPtnXfVAQJh3AP+IMnvHQSvuTwQwYCx1zyposZcbF7JBIFc
fkbnLBZ1Yn4JDiwPCDthzP2C
o do that today.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRBZ6XEjvBPtnXfVAQKMHQQApaUnvSUFeYu0hI9wFbLm8peQ1miwlrkI
KFcZq26nFtQb/rSualxYR1ln82LIlGSLpR9PkYHzpbN+/FYGGXk+IrZ2OsUHalvd
1gsklmeHBc/CdJijFsfUw9XEQUZWgzobeGJz6RH5m4+JY8bmi1AdaNZ2nUnPd56j
50Gq6R0yqUs=
=Nw
e used to people telling us our tool is
too slow. We just say it does the job superbly and it's usually fast
enough. :)
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRCQv3EjvBPtnXfVAQK43AQAhexjo3SVeWV9/3PYlR+PQPvZH72XY6XG
FuuWN6cfm0XGCA
unacceptable performance.
I guess the humor of that got lost in translation. You had to be there.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRCVN3EjvBPtnXfVAQIdOAP/VxEc9ptQdrrJuthZM+wEeYy2eHMTno59
eFGurHysKDl5AUcYPt0dCeP8GAiuvZmU2Vp8/07
/ )
[...]
Can you update http://www.python.org/dev/bazaar/ ?
For example "Branch details" needs to be updated because the trunk
branch is no longer Python 2.6.
Done.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4
ction
technique that doesn't require a full revision history download to get
started. Stacked branches greatly improve performance for the initial
pull and push, and reduces disk usage on the server.
When the new machine is in place, I'll make sure we provide stacked
branches
plugin do a good job at a full conversion.
Basically, every svn branch becomes a bzr branch and all svn tags are
converted to bzr tags, which are not separate branches, but actual
symbolic names for revisions in other branches.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
i
l svn tags are
converted to bzr tags, which are not separate branches, but actual
symbolic names for revisions in other branches.
Unless somebody had committed to the tag - right?
That would be insane, right? :)
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (D
event the following).
Still I will describe this so you see the possibilities.
Launchpad has something call "merge proposals". When a branch is
ready, the original developer creates a merge proposal which is
basically a request for review. The dev can ask for a specific
re
es. People can still
experiment and find alternatives if they want.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRMRb3EjvBPtnXfVAQJU0AQAugEbLciCd2EIzqPrPOmWykoK7+u1fCAh
yLnc3aFeserk50WwYkfovZDZESNs8F8ADZ2CIVGK+5AWW+MC17YAx2P4M0gUEeLY
ulTQmrpLu
ndeed. as a release manager, I have to manage several branches in
parallel. Several are for patches I'm looking at for release
blockers, one perhaps for the PEP 101 administrivia, perhaps another
pristine one as a baseline, not to mention several I'd have for my own
bugs and featu
n charge of your tool
rather than the other way 'round!
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRN1PHEjvBPtnXfVAQKULQP9GDRrT76LCZpVRFNCOP6K6CvVGIvtd9I7
ryPk1RFYTqIduEC3FLvhQh0xjxT2HGo/99m0EZZbM4ZxMbhwvM4Sw8ppkcCFwti
downloadable distributions, see the Python
3.0 website:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
See PEP 361 for release schedule details:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 7, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi,
Great job Barry and all contributors who fixed the "last" bugs ;-)
Thanks!
The document "What's new in Python 3.0" in should be updated:
http://docs.python.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 7, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Victor Stinner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Great job Barry and all contributors who fixed the "last" bugs ;-)
Which reminds me that thi
2.5.3?
Neither. For 2.4.x, we only accept security fixes; for 2.5.3, only bug
fixes (and after that, only security fixes). New features are
rejected.
I completely agree. If only there was an independent repository of
add-on packages for Python available... .
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
The backported version of MP is on pypi. Fancy that.
SHHH! Don't tell Guido you've made dups of his time machine keys.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4
of these
applied to 2.6?
No!
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRoa1nEjvBPtnXfVAQKwwgP/YvkcFbFc+RDV3VSJ6EHWuBVOdG9YFEGq
Riq2GAst7kBMrteMfMHSv0Vb3elngLPRCKxTndUIV9B/ksfVQEHNbz9l1z7HRxmZ
0jVeYCkXCj923bsZ48Gq1MmcZ1d07TERfSVCDXnKooQgj8GlNqT70ru/0+eMFk8d
2.6.1.
Anyone remember the bool debacle?
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRodJHEjvBPtnXfVAQK0VwP/f2vyfahYxhRh/ug+ekMp63rhVvy2iMTn
VXndnaKqJtJovjuM3YAGQk9/8l6tD4w0DklAi4e175aBvwzRkWb4RwMHGMO2/jn1
mNjloHqku6qIg6+p7jS5ytwsH6sGndgAjARY7jFE8OgYoYPrxtTabgXpr9H
ct.
I've updated that page to point to the launchpad mirrors. Thanks.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRxFPnEjvBPtnXfVAQJtWwP/SONN5FuLamUjYtU7s0KIAZ0I3v9YYm0E
4JGLARI+Jugh+IdMlUmJUquA5CZj4FoPgYNl1
g the last Python 3.0 release candidate for this
Wednesday.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSSIgu3EjvBPtnXfVAQKzGgP/XH2szIZdG9nvZTI2M9iWXuz/tBwH6ncd
Kv70ATpttQEg/bmuRp5nSmg1p7hxSmTqu9waq4qdc07IPa+ofTngbunUKkTrbZoo
E/r72dGw29pou7
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:03 AM, Facundo Batista wrote:
2008/11/17 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0
final and
2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would mean that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0
final and 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That
to get the fix into
3.0rc4, planned for release tomorrow.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSSM1b3EjvBPtnXfVAQLrtQP+OEDfWftaUJjLqdKlbH9uSfXKueKUrbJT
EZ3HPwSO1Ka5p1zKqNeSiON8MQLTMIzKW2at7YXk4nj0I7YOuho7QxatOVodZ+Er
0bA2w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Actually, I've wanted to do timed releases, though I think monthly
is unrealistic. Maybe every two months is about the right time
frame. Timed releases are nice be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release
achieve.
While I'm happy that Barry has automated his part to a high degree,
my part is, unfortunately, much less automated. I could personally
automate the build process a bit more, but part of it is also testing
of the installers, which is manual.
Martin, I'm keen on figuring out a way
normal. It's okay if the
announcement happens Friday or over the weekend.
I will also try to get up early to do the release before my work day
starts, to better coordinate with Euro time. So expect me on #python-
dev tomorrow (my morning).
Will that work for you?
- -Barry
-BE
/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSSbOhHEjvBPtnXfVAQLzBwP/dS2j4XhZMNdb28TG3ZblkSmlPS4IU20U
Vvq85inUkJ6idwKZBqa6brrD1hbqrl4UjKZh4
).
There is no rc4!
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSScZWXEjvBPtnXfVAQKpQAQAi9Q8rfgcCVXmQ2tIqaiAVKOQHDPQdfhF
lyDWHg+6i2EGrbs0Jju5GB9YML1yNga3X85zfQSedu6mgpA4dV6NvW988N3Wp4oG
ztDGT7yLxwYe4Wy606FF6lxSlXSvXQRLc/Nf1qgn8dDGskQKO2LZ+fUHW0BIWDBN
RFAuZqzd
e anything else to
check in to either tree before then. As soon as I hear from Guido, or
issue 2306 is closed, I'm branching 3.0 and tagging it for release.
Great work everyone, we're almost there!
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
nloadable
distributions, see the Python 3.0 website:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBS
ter first impression :)
Fixed, thanks!
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSTc/WHEjvBPtnXfVAQL8TwP+M2Ryv7WY36ICEvzGU4EzlRG/gI4MolQe
cD8DJUJfQuR6INTot/t7vTcL8oDHq7q9OHbfvd3jmSwH/ZytsMz2OvJUYlKDQjwG
BcQRpioprcesoU6cufSmKAUiUP+L0RTAMmT0WDbbeCzzMZRq3Humd4Zs43nL26N
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:19 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Thanks so much for seeing this one through, Barry and co! Champagne!!!
Now if only I could go on vacation. :)
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSTc
odules get converted.
I agree. I tried to put a positive spin on the announcement, and the
backward compatibility issue in particular. I probably failed.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSTgybHEjvBPtnXfVAQJPjgP+NeyLY2ACryOmxeRV8qcotKrMJZYBwu6q
But next time, we'll get that part right for
sure!
In the meantime, I'll make sure Georg is involved in point releases
moving forward.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSThm8HEjvBPtnXfVAQJgGgP/eiAUroHbxvpJL
/releases/2.6.1/
Bugs can be reported in the Python bug tracker:
http://bugs.python.org
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin
later than the 19th.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSTsNtXEjvBPtnXfVAQKI4AP8CNQEEb2KuN8cvd+t6YK39jFPxEo8j/YV
022zAWX3nNgj/R88C7OwoP6nYLx+zz4D3USj65OZN4NS9W9tJYKs+Lv6CnjIJi2X
cVceihcJHVYbyx8r14mYt6VjSmpTuNBD8uPZGv23WLZJZ5pNpWeuEMqI6XR27bY2
NYxbwSEUQp
3.0.2 in two months from now. Two months are quite some time to
fix the performance issue of the new IO library.
If Guido and Barry are fine with a lax policy on performance fixes
we can integrate more tweaks. I believe performances patches were
considered as features in the past. For this r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 7, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm personally okay with performance fixes in point releases, as
long it doesn't change API or add additional features.
Does your okay include or exclude new int
considered
release-critical (which they shouldn't, IMO)?
I agree with that.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBST0dJHEjvBPtnXfVAQIqhwQAkdJgQs8aq452mQRWGdNKLBw5Fsu1m/uV
PGcYbRvfD5nzKPhRvCK42okPaUTWXOAuLHf8gvLT+LwRewmzt
in 3.0 and get_filename() in 3.1?
+1
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBST2LKXEjvBPtnXfVAQJZzAP/avX4YgpBSmOAh6Zc2TZEnsllRz6CRa86
bEPCWF1an7H9zzDl6gS5ZjbstXoEPf0Irr+W6BTSLVnRT/G7rFgw5q/QlG2yqvCP
dgOCT1Vr3PXgXouNkGaBF
ple email alias reflecting python-3000 to python-
dev?
Or,
https://launchpad.net/replybot
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSUb/R3EjvBPtnXfVAQJ4sgP/Wy8ma4nzcYQ5gXVCw2TpODq5l/duzB+I
f3ej5tSyvI2wzf+OTQQwth5A0xySB8LoGbSQsYwhvbA+3xXOe1lIYeV
ntil after Christmas and get it out, say on the 29th? Do we need an
rc?
This question goes mostly to Martin and Georg. What would work for
you guys?
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSUwgEXEjvBPtnXfVAQIthgP7BDS6xfBHhADKc50ANvZ5aAfWh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'd like to get Python 3.0.1 out before the end of the year. There
are
no showstoppers, but I haven't yet looked at the deferred blockers or
the buildbots.
Do yo
year then. In the mean
time, please continue to work on fixes for 3.0.1. I'm thinking
tentatively to do a release the week of January 5th.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSU+9IHEjvBPtnXfVAQL0vQQAmxcMDP1GUuhCOxCVHqnSGaywdG1mz3f0
iNC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 21, 2008, at 6:56 AM, Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Thanks. I've bumped that to release blocker for now. If there are
any
other 'high' bugs that you want considered for 3.0.1, please make the
release blocke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 22, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Barry Warsaw python.org> writes:
Please make sure these issues are release blockers. Fixes before
January 5th would be able to make it into 3.0.1.
Should http://bugs.python.org/issue4486
of
the imports.
Python 3.0 does not have MacOS or Carbon modules.
Seems that there are two ways to go.
Put back the Carbon and MacOS modules into 3.0.
Use Python 2 to build the python 3 package.
Barry
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@
resh blood, and mentoring is a great way to shepherd those new
recruits to full commit privileges.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSV+v0XEjvBPtnXfVAQIUsAP/aAO7ykXaSP/mA6Cs2874vYIHWZnzYnJx
+hyv2i0A65Td9FX2+Jno/TtXLamnU7qC+gqOvf+bkPKyV1T0S
a that a real branch would have. So a bzr bundle would be
a fine thing to attach to a tracker issue, and it would be much more
alive than a plain old patch.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSV+wuXEjvBPtnXfVAQK/bQQAnZIjOCZAvRX/
e official branches, but a
little sandbox for yourself. I don't know if anybody's actually doing
this.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSV+xoXEjvBPtnXfVAQKhkwP+JgSPtX5CPSNYr9O15ISr1BB8d/fLYmhN
SvJlMaSEADZeaetIaiFfbTBA0YQJHiGrQW/KIHshaJEO
ort this style of working, but this just
doesn't fit my brain. I much prefer separate working trees, each with
its own feature or fix.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSV+ymnEjvBPtnXfVAQIDKgQArzTiPmBZnrVBnfrn4kfIJ/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Barry Warsaw python.org> writes:
Although it doesn't help Victor specifically, anyone with svn commit
privileges also has permission to push Bazaar (and I think Mercurial)
branches
u'll find it impossible to
switch to any modern DVCS.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSV/s0HEjvBPtnXfVAQLkXQQAhuWFDoOUuA44JFtiTYGXJE1r3khAlUyL
jo8kLDPRBUG4X9yFmsLdd1dqYSHjTJTin1aHLtfN804pKhaCQRwoWCGl9fi5quks
Y39axH0L0FjDhteSVFiDYefgALJR9OELyrrx
ation satisfy that requirement? I
guess I'm asking whether you think all this talk about DVCSes is
futile or premature?
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSV/0v3EjvBPtnXfVAQJCUAQAqecbBtn5NnadHTl1CaHAwfA9ku5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
[I don't think Barry actually can/does provide these privileges]
I probably could, but I got pretty burned out doing regular admin
stuff. ;/
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Ve
27;t doubt that people have problems upgrading, in
fact for anything as complex as an operating system, it would be
impossible to avoid. I'm biased of course, but I have to say our
distro team does an excellent job here.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 4, 2009, at 4:21 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Steve Holden writes:
Hey, isn't Ubuntu Debian-based? ...
Ouch. I don't actually use Ubuntu, but when everybody on my local LUG
list from the "Linux should be Windows but cheaper" newbies to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:29 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
[...]
I have been using bzr for all of my importlib work. It's worked out
well sans the problem that SOMEONE Barry has not
upgraded the bzr installation to support the n
l, please experiment!)
parenthetical-ly y'rs,
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSWPn6XEjvBPtnXfVAQKq7QQAgWXtcm9zAhdnm11rAo9UhtDtEa1yBqi8
+Z7JYfUcKL+IQI0sCuCHzY6VNNoCMsbondtWavVH3/y9xO4ySq+HrylUzgSH6Gu/
b0E1UZiRQsV33hhhG/0WupEdBd18wTRLipesjNq
I will continue to RM 2.6 and 3.0, and I want to start planning for a
3.0.1 release this month.
Cheers
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSWfObXEjvBPtnXfVAQI8IgQAqIcJf5SogGu7uYVU7esbZ7osXmYhy0Nx
m2hr1r+1/ohzfTlty0VyfwbKsFjoGAjn9X5feMNpFQ/5Kwv3JO3s217rrq
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 9, 2009, at 8:21 PM, Aahz wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009, Barry Warsaw wrote:
To that end, I'm happy to say that Benjamin Peterson will be the
release
manager for Python 2.7 and 3.1. I will be mentoring him through the
process, but
, if you want to discuss such a generic API.
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSW+AknEjvBPtnXfVAQIuKgP/SQcqJ+mdV7P9Euphb4kYPlqHKn6iUYTE
uMSNIUvf49Z3pMoup8fJmnOjbela7hCW0g1ZIERaMSrttIq0RNACsoA9GSulfi2M
upXp+IE0bGpnxrd0TNNs0DiRHSlerH7okqsix07CdOK2KR3iKBLPy
, b=None):
print a, b
# This is a TypeError
foo(**{'a': 1, 'b': 2})
foo(**dict(a=1, b=2))
from optparse import OptionParser
parser = OptionParser()
# This also raises a TypeError
parser.add_option('-f', '--foo')
- -snip snip-
The add_option
rgs:
option = args[0]
Should this be fixed, or wait for 2.7?
The fact that 'a' and 'b' are unicodes and not accepted as keyword
arguments is probably the tougher problem. I haven't yet looked at
what it might take to fix. Is
It seems that the packaging of Mac Python 2.6 is missing at least one
file
that is critical to the operation of bundlebuilder.py.
I've logged the issue as http://bugs.python.org/issue4937.
Barry
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pytho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 16, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Barry Warsaw
wrote:
The optparse one could easily be fixed for 2.6, if we agree it
should be
fixed. This untested patch should do it I think:
Index
the Unicode strings
contain just ASCII. I'm fine with fixing both cases Barry mentioned,
especially if it otherwise breaks "from __future__ import
unicode_literals". I expect though that as one tries more things one
will find more things broken with that mode.
Maybe not though! I&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 17, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le Saturday 17 January 2009 04:45:28 Barry Warsaw, vous avez écrit :
The optparse one could easily be fixed for 2.6, if we agree it should
be fixed. This untested patch should do it I think
On 17 Jan 2009, at 20:08, Ned Deily wrote:
In article <7043cb7c-18f4-4e16-ae0c-cda6ba311...@barrys-emacs.org>,
Barry Scott wrote:
It seems that the packaging of Mac Python 2.6 is missing at least one
file
that is critical to the operation of bundlebuilder.py.
I've logged the is
leted
* Call for rebuttals
* Second draft of impressions
* (perhaps multiple) Recommendations to Guido and python-dev
* Experimental live branches deployed for testing
* Final recommendation
* Final decision
My understanding is that a final decision will /not/ be made by Pycon.
Barry
-BEGI
ts of a DVCS, or who do not have commit access to the
code.python.org branches would have viable alternatives.
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSXx8tHEjvBPtnXfVAQK1CgQAoDlHr9KthVr9sA6DfeXE3D35mYUop01X
TD06OggbayFDGQYA0Zae+zU050R9UvuTpaF7XtSiSgBl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 25, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Barry Warsaw python.org> writes:
Besides, certain developments like support for the svn wire protocol
in bzr would make the WFC (we fear change :) argument moot.
This is an argument *agai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 25, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Barry Warsaw python.org> writes:
Besides, certain developments like support for the svn wire
protocol
in bzr would make the WFC (we fear change :) argument moot.
This is an argum
point. Depending on the
specific changes being merged, this may or may not be important.
You're right that we can do this today, but I still believe there are
advantages to supporting a DVCS for the official branches.
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4
It seems like if the change is
transparent to everyone who is using it, then the only thing that we
care about is that the chosen backend will preserve all the
information to make it truly transparent to everyone involved.
svn is the more lossy repository format.
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
her API changes
added to 3.0 need to be backed out and applied only to the python3
trunk.
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSX9ggHEjvBPtnXfVAQJkTwQAmpKLlXwiIdgHANxlj85wNko4kB7o8Xv8
8wKT6/ZZeU8t09eelchklhw9rAB4I/BQcoQYPg9jiUydbFWdP
at PyCon during the sprints. Actually the sprint
one is a rather nice idea if Benjamin is willing to spend sprint time
on it (and he is sticking around for the sprints) as I assume you,
Barry, will be there to be able to help in person and we can squash
last minute issues really quickly.
s put it to
history", and replace it with 3.2. By then, users will wonder if
there
is ever a 3.x release that is any good.
That's my fear as well. I have no problem doing a quick 3.0.1 release
any time between now and the end of February and start with the first
alpha or beta of 3.
of certain
(admittedly
obsolete) operators from the 3.0 branch was premature. Barry at least
thinks those should be rolled back. Others?
I agree that not too much harm is done by removing stuff in 3.0.1 that
erroneously had been left in the 3.0 release - in particular if 3.0.1
gets released qu
to do this. I also think
that a 3.1 release 6 months after 3.0 is perfectly fine and serves our
users just as well.
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSX+fNnEjvBPtnXfVAQJO1QQAmRVH0tslNfRfpQsC+2jlJu5uljOVvuvN
uE3/HFktxLUr6
pend most of our energy on
a 3.1 release in 6 months.
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSYHga3EjvBPtnXfVAQLQxQP+Ipu3J0Ogvj0kW4txTgu8SJ4Hr6q7ll7i
uyASnNQdB0WV3My1VsymMb5VlIWJtuvwY4DxYR1fqLHOQY6CloFqmmIkeMpZKt/K
qXqNI1OvyLfoqg6QqXI+A4UFnUwlv7bSFH
tream consumers that
may be distributing 3.0 and will have a different schedule for doing
their upgrades. What I really want to avoid is people having to do
stuff like the ugliness to work around the 2.2.1 additions:
try:
True
except NameError:
True = 1
False = 0
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Aahz wrote:
The problem is that the obvious candidate for doing the vetting is the
Release Manager, and Barry doesn't like this approach. The vetting
does
need to be handled by a core committer IMO -- MAL, ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
The problem is that the obvious candidate for doing the vetting is
the
Release Manager, and Barry doesn't like this approach. The vetting
does
need to be handled by a core committe
hs I hope. Also you could try find shelve users (are there
any?) and recommend they install this as a 3rd party package, with the
expectation it'll be built into 3.1.
I concur.
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSYMctnEjvBPtnXfVAQKC3QP/bVCQ6KTI5Kd1
ement available for several months, it will be easy to pull that
into the 3.1 release.
Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSYMdtXEjvBPtnXfVAQK+FAQAlNL26s4ekva/3jpnATfZfXtAkHa+Wqdo
f9luB8gkLk3Dk0qXyjm6AisFCMh+Zgu8g+OgrWS3DO6yR+/Sl
2101 - 2200 of 2826 matches
Mail list logo
