-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 28, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 01:05 PM 11/28/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On 11/28/06, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > There's a related issue that may or may not be in sco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 28, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Well, you can always use setuptools, which generates script
> wrappers that import the desired module and call a function, after
> first setting up sys.path. :)
That's so 21st Century! Where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 29, 2006, at 5:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, let's do that, please. I've long been annoyed that site.py
> sets up a local user installation directory, a very useful feature,
> but _only_ on OS X. I've long since promoted my perso
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 29, 2006, at 10:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Another nice feature there is that it uses a pre-existing layout
> convention (bin lib share etc ...) rather than attempting to build
> a new one, so the only thing that has to change about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:45 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
[Phillip describes a bunch of things I didn't know about setuptools]
As is often the case, maybe everything I want is already there and
I've just been looking in the wrong places. :) Thanks! I'l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 30, 2006, at 9:40 AM, Talin wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I like ~/.local though - -- it seems counter to the
>>> app-specific dot-file approach old schoolers like me ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 30, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Talin wrote:
> I really don't like all these "cute" names, simply because they are
> obscure. Names that only make sense once you've gotten the joke may
> be self-gratifying but not good HCI.
Warsaw's Fifth Law :)
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 30, 2006, at 6:44 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> When I switched to OS X for most of my desktops, I had several
>> collisions in this namespace.
>
> I think on MacOSX you have to consider that it&#x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 3, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Ben Wing schrieb:
>> this one is fairly simple. if `m' is a match object, i'd like to be
>> able to write m[1] instead of m.group(1). (similarly, m[:] should
>> return
>> the same as list(m.group
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 6, 2006, at 7:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> On 2006-12-06 10:26, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>>> From what I can tell, __str__ may return a Unicode object, but
>>> only if can be converted to an 8-bit string using the default
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 6, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Michael Urman wrote:
>> I don't have anything older than 2.4 laying around either, but IIRC
>> in 2.3 unicode() did not call __unicode__().
>
> It turns out __unicode__() is called on Python 2.3.5.
Ah cool, thanks. I must
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 22, 2006, at 8:05 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
>A good rule of thumb is that you should only use 'except:' if the
>exception handler will be printing out or logging the traceback; at
>least the user will be aware that an error has occur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 24, 2006, at 11:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Michael> Could / should 'PropertyType' be added to the types
> module ?
>
> I thought the types module was deprecated.
Except that there are some types you can't (easily) get any other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 29, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But my main objection to suggesting that these constants ought to be
> used is that open() is a built-in but you would have to import os to
> be able to call the seek method on the object it retur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 2, 2007, at 5:41 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Note that as side-effect of this it becomes a lot harder to manipulate
> PYTHONPATH to trick Python into loading a standard module from a
> non-standard location, improving security and robustness of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2007, at 6:07 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Regarding application specific package setups:
>
> In my experience it's better to have an application specific
> sys.path setup function that manages this, rather than trying
> to manipulate PYTHONPA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Guido van Rossum schrieb:
>> Maybe this should be done in a more systematic fashion? E.g. by
>> giving
>> all "internal" header files a "py_" prefix?
>
> Yet another alternative would be to move a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 4, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> As specified, above, it is incompatible with the current API. I think
>
> #include
>
> should be preserved. I personally see no problem with a single header
> file, and would prefer that include to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 4, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> On 4 Jan, 2007, at 17:56, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 04 January 2007 11:33, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> For the python subdirectory, there is the issue that the framework
>>> includes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 5, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> On Friday 05 January 2007 17:40, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>> Whoever is subscribed to python-dev with a broken corporate
>> autoresponder that sends everyone who posts to the list this
>> useless resp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 5, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Friday 05 January 2007 17:40, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>>> Whoever is subscribed to python-dev with a broken corporate
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 5, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Unless there's been a complete rewrite of epydoc since the last time I
> looked at it, I'd have to give a very strong -1 against epydoc; it
> has all
> the problems of pydoc, plus new ones.
I have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> The idea is that we only generate the warnings optionally, only for
> things
> that can be written in a manner compatible with prevalent Python
> versions,
> and in the most efficient manner we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 12, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Well, that is one of the cases in which that won't be possible ;)
I think there will be at least three areas that will make porting a
challenge:
- - APIs where the semantics have changed instead o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 16, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Jim Jewett wrote:
> Other than dict.items (and .keys and .values) returning a non-list,
> are there any other cases where the Py3K idiom can't already be used
> in (or at least backported to) Py 2.x?
I know Guido is again
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 31, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Aahz wrote:
> Thanks again for giving me something fun to do with my life. ;-)
Here, here!
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBRcC0nnEjvBPtnXfVAQI2+AP/QcOBBiGI/zDreuFU2bjq0MNH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:32 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Oh, now I am definitely in favor of .[]! I read it in gmail in FireFox
> which uses a small variable-pitch font whose dot is a single pixel.
> The .() example was hard to find; the .[] jumped out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> I'm still -1 on the basic idea, though, on the grounds of
> YAGNIOE (You Aren't Going to Need It Often Enough).
I can't really add much more than what's already be stated, but I
echo Greg's sentiment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> On Thursday 15 February 2007 21:48, Steve Holden wrote:
>> Greg Ewing wrote:
>>> Steve Holden wrote:
A further data point is that modern machines seem to give
timing variabilities due to C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 20, 2007, at 4:47 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> The other area where I expected to hear wailing and gnashing of
> teeth is users
> compiling with third-party extensions that haven't been updated to
> a Py_ssize_t
> API and still use longs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 23, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:36:50 +0100, Hans Meine
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> [snip - distutils should leave #!/usr/bin/env python alone]
>>
>> Comments? (I first posted this to d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 25, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> The time schedules in PEP 361 (2.6 release schedule) and what Guido
> has said for 3k (from what I remember) are roughly:
>
> April 2007 - 3.0 PEPs and features accepted/decided
> June 2007 - 3.0a1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 5, 2007, at 1:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> amk> Tangentially related:
> amk> At PyCon, there was general agreement that exposing a read-
> only
> amk> Bazaar/Mercurial/git/whatever version of the repository
> wouldn't be
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 6, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> (Of course, I don't know how long a checkout of a hypothetical Bazaar
>> repository would take; maybe it's not any faster.)
>
> From my experience with git and the Linux repository, an hour is
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here's a new PEP that's the outgrowth of work Brett Cannon and I did
at PyCon. Basically we were looking for a way to allow for forward
compatibility with PEP 3108, which describes a reorganization of the
standard library. PEP 364 is for Python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 6, 2007, at 7:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why not add some tag capability to the new tracker (maybe the generic
> keywords field you mentioned would suffice)? People could attach
> whatever
> tags seem appropriate. Limiting the tags t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> Supported Renamings
>> ===
>>
>> There are at least 4 use cases explicitly supported by this PEP:
>>
>> - - Simple top-level package name renamings, such as ``StringIO`` to
>>``stringio``;
>>
>> - - Sub-package renamings where th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 6, 2007, at 10:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does the proposed renaming include any restructuring (e.g. making
> hierarchies out of all or part of the stdlib where none existed
> before)? It
> wasn't obvious to me. For example, might th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 7, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> >> Third party package renaming is also supported, via several public
>> >> interfaces accessible by any Python module.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I guess a .pth file could install the mappings for the third-par
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 7, 2007, at 5:46 PM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>> When Python's import machinery is initialized, the oldlib package is
>> imported. Inside oldlib there is a class called ``OldStdlibLoader``.
>> This class implements the PEP 302 interface and is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 7, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> I think it's important to import on demand only though.
>
> And I agree.
Cool.
>> I should
>> probably make that clear in the PEP . IOW, "import email"
>> should not by side-effect import all sub-m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 16, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Mike Krell wrote:
> On 3/16/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If they pass the flag to the function, the code will stop running on
>> 2.5 and earlier. This is worse than having code that works on all
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> What are the current thoughts on when Py2.5.1 will go out?
> Do we need a bug-day beforehand?
That might not be a bad idea. I've been working on some email
package fixes in the background. W
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 21, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> [Raymond]
>>> What are the current thoughts on when Py2.5.1 will go out?
>>> Do we need a bug-day beforehand?
>
> [AMK]
>> A bug day would be a great idea! I have a mailbox bug that'd
>> greatly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> On Friday 06 April 2007 10:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> PEP 8 anyone?
>
> New users should be exposed sooner than this; most will never read
> any PEP.
> The tutorial seems like a good plac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 11, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
> The SVN repository hasn‘t answered http requests since this
> morning. Anyone know what is up with that?
Known breakage. We're working on it.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Vers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 11, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
>> The SVN repository hasn‘t answered http requests since this
>> morning. Anyone know what is up with that?
> Know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 11, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I'll take this opportunity to mention that we've ordered a new ssl
> cert for our expired one on https. It hasn't arrived yet, but
> should within a few days. I'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been getting some test failures in Python 2.5 svn head on Mac OS
X 10.4.9 which I'm not getting on Linux (Ubuntu feisty beta).
test_sqlite and test_zipimport both fail, however, when run in
verbose mode (e.g. ./python.exe Lib/test/test_sqli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 13, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
>> I don't know if this is caused by a bug in the Mac's pty
>> implementation or something we're doing wrong on that platform. I
>> played around with several modifications to pty.fork() on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 13, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
> Likely differing buffering behavior. Prior to Linux 2.6, the pipe
> implementation allowed only a single buffer (that is, the bytes from
> a single write call) in a pipe at a time, and blocke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 13, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I don't know, maybe it is. This one's extremely low risk as it only
>> affects certain platforms when test_pty is run verbosely. But if it
>> ain't cool, I'll back it out and re-apply after 2.5.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:39 PM, Collin Winter wrote:
> Fast and simple: I want all stdlib test cases to stop subclassing
> unittest.TestCase and start subclassing test_support.TestCase.
>
> So: any objections to making this change?
Please use the absolu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 25, 2007, at 2:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Well, there are editors that don't intelligently strip
>>> whitespace, so
>>> that people using them would be constantly pained by such a hook.
>
> Guido> And they should. There really is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Goodger and I have been the PEP editors for ages. Well, mostly
David lately as I've been way too busy to be of much use. David is
also pretty busy, and he lamented that he doesn't have much time for
editing when he put out his call for PE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 2, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:34 AM 5/2/2007 -0700, Trent Mick wrote:
>> But if you don't want the EOLs? Example from some code of mine:
>>
>> raise MakeError("extracting '%s' in '%s' did not create the "
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 2, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Alexey Borzenkov wrote:
> On 4/30/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Python initially inherited its parsing from C. While this has
>> been generally useful, there are some remnants which have been
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Barry Warsaw writes:
>
>> The problem is that
>>
>> _("some string"
>>" and more of it")
>>
>> is not the same as
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Barry Warsaw writes:
>
>> IMO, this is a problem. We can make the Python extraction tool work,
>> but we should still be very careful about breaking 3rd party tools
>&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This came up in a different context. I originally emailed this to
the python.org admins, but Aahz rightly points out that we should
first agree here that this actually /is/ our official stance.
- -snip-
We have an "official unofficial" p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 10, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> This strikes me as a bit over-officious (the 'officially' adds
> nothing to
> me except a bit of stuffiness).
>
> Worse, it seems wrong and hence, to me, misleading. The current de
> facto
> poli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 10, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> "The Python Software Foundation officially supports the current
>> stable major release and one prior major release. Currently, Python
>> 2.5 and 2.4 are officially supported.
>
> If you take "of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 12, 2007, at 4:29 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> This PEP attempts to formalize the existing practice, but goes beyond
> it in introducing security releases. The addition of security releases
> addresses various concerns I heard over the last yea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 12, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I don't understand the point of a "security release" made up to a year
> after commit, especially in view of the first quoted paragraph. A
> commit may not be made without confirming *immediat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 14, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> In general, I recognize the burden on the release engineer, and
> obviously any burdensome policy needs his OK. But I think the policy
> should be *effective* too, and I just don't see that a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 14, 2007, at 5:32 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> We should decide what's right for security releases and then assess
>> whether we need to recruit in order to perform that activity the
>> way we
>> want to.
>
> I disagree. If you would like to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 14, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Still, I'm in agreement with you that the repository holds the
>> security
>> patches and that the tarballs are a convenience. They are an
>> important
>> convenience though, so I would say t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 15, 2007, at 12:55 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I don't think I can be more plain than that: yes, I do not take
> security
> seriously enough to release security fixes for old Python versions
> more
> than once a year. As a user, it's easy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 18, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> SR 354 Enumerations in Python Finney
> Rejected; not enough interest, not sufficiently Pythonic.
I have a competing proposal for enumerations which I just haven't
gotte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 18, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Guido, can you tell me whether the concept of enums for Python is
>> being rejected, or this specific proposal? My proposal would be
>> quite different, and I think, more Pythonic. Should I bot
On Dec 07, 2010, at 04:59 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>As a library author, I would dearly love to just add logging liberally
>without placing any additional burden to the users of my library. If my users
>wants to read those logs, he will configure logging. If he doesn't, he
>won't. With the current b
On Dec 08, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>Barry, if you mean +1 as in "I agree this is how it should work", then
>we're all agreed.
Yep, that's what I meant!
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-D
On Dec 12, 2010, at 02:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:01:42 +0100
>Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
>> Wiadomość napisana przez Raymond Hettinger w dniu 2010-12-11, o godz. 22:18:
>>
>> >> *(I sometimes lose track of which changes were made in both branches
>> >> pre-2.7, which ones w
On Dec 16, 2010, at 03:41 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>I noticed that changes related to PEP 3147 and PEP 3149 in Doc haven’t
>been accompanied by versionadded/versionchanged directives.
>
>Is that on purpose, meaning that everyone should be aware of these PEPs
>when reading 3.2 docs, or just an oversi
On Dec 30, 2010, at 02:50 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
>You are welcome; thanks for the feedback. (I sometimes feel
>like I'm working in a bit of a vacuum, though Barry does chime in
>occasionally...but I do realize that people are busy; that's
>why I inherited this job in the first place, after al
On Jan 04, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>Ugh, I can't be the only one who finds these special cases to be a little
>nasty?
>
>Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Yeah, I agree. Still it would be interesting to see what kind of performance
improvement this would resul
On behalf of the python-mode developers I'm happy to announce the release of
python-mode.el 5.2.0. A summary of the changes since 5.1.0 is included below.
python-mode.el is a major mode for editing Python code in Emacs and XEmacs.
This version has been supported and developed by core Python devel
On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Wow, that Purify file is really old... Unless anyone can confirm it
>still works, maybe just toss it? Barry?
Wow indeed. The email address in there hasn't worked in, what? a decade? :)
Toss it!
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signa
On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:16 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>For the release schedule PEPs it means "done and dusted" (similar to
>the meaning for ordinary PEPs). For the API standardisation PEPs (like
>WSGI) it instead means the spec has been locked down and any changes
>will require a new PEP. This caused
On Jan 21, 2011, at 08:23 AM, James Y Knight wrote:
>Well, yes, that's a pretty annoying bug in mailman, isn't it? If only anyone
>around here was involved in mailman and could fix it! :) [I've attempted to
>cc this to mailman-users with this message, but since I'm not subscribed I
>dunno if it'll
On Jan 24, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>P.S. I've discussed this with Michael and his preference is against going
>back to the Py3.1 style where the tests were under Lib/test. He thinks the
>current tree makes it easier to sync with Py2.7 and the unittest2 third-party
>module. A
On Jan 30, 2011, at 05:35 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>And the real question is: should we change that before 3.2 final? If we
>don't change that in 3.2, it will be harder to change it later (but it
>is still possible).
I don't see how you possibly can without re-entering beta. Mucking with the
im
On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
+1
(I'd have said +0 for the humor of it :).
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@p
On Feb 23, 2011, at 08:43 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Or you realized later how nice it would be, grabbed the time machine,
>> and fixed 10 release blockers on the 19th. :)
>
>No no no. He actually grabbed the time machine, drove 20 years back,
>and gave it to Guido so he could release Python 0.
On Feb 21, 2011, at 12:39 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>Le dimanche 20 février 2011 à 23:22 +0100, Georg Brandl a écrit :
>> On behalf of the Python development team, I'm delighted to announce
>> Python 3.2 final release.
>>
>> Python 3.2 is a continuation of the efforts to improve and stabilize the
On Feb 25, 2011, at 01:50 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>On Feb 25, 2011, at 12:09 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>> I think I would have liked the strategy of the PEP better (i.e.
>> create clones for feature branches, rather than putting all
>> in a single repository).
>
>In my brief tests, the s
On Feb 25, 2011, at 06:40 PM, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>First, get an initial clone (let's name it 'master') over the wire
>using: [1]
>
> $ hg clone -U ssh://h...@hg.python.org/cpython master
>
>Then create a hardlinked clone [2] for working in each branch,
>specifying the branch to check out usi
On Feb 25, 2011, at 01:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>Ah, this reminds me. Figuring out what to do with the AST version
>should probably be a hg roadmap topic.
Is there a bug tracker for the conversion?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_
On Feb 25, 2011, at 09:04 PM, Philippe Fremy wrote:
>What you are asking for is available in TortoiseHg which absolutely
>rocks (if you are not allergic to the idea of a graphical tool).
Like shellfish, bee-strings, and Perl I'm afraid. :)
>You can even select indvidually inside a file which lin
On Feb 26, 2011, at 01:49 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>Le 25/02/2011 20:43, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
>> On Feb 25, 2011, at 06:40 PM, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Note that each of these branch clones will initially have your local
>>> master repo as the def
Notice the subject line. Can we make commit messages contain the named branch
that the change applies to? The 'cpython' in the header doesn't really tell
me whether I should care about this diff or not.
Say the change applied to 2.6 but I only care about Python 3. It would be
nice if I could ju
On Feb 26, 2011, at 06:32 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>>> Named branches are exclusive, they can't be a subset of each other ;)
>
>Actually, they can. Take the example of the Mercurial repo itself. They
>fix bugs in the stable branch and add features in default. When they
>merge stable into default a
On Feb 26, 2011, at 01:49 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>You speak to my heart, sir. In your ~/.hgrc, under the section [ui],
>set “editor = path/to/mercurial/source/hgeditor” and enjoy your diffs.
>I use it and love it.
Except it doesn't quite work the way I want it to (hg 1.6.3). It opens your
edito
On Feb 26, 2011, at 02:05 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:08:47 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> $ cd py27 # now I want to synchronize
>> $ hg pull -u ssh://h...@hg.python.org/cpython
>>
>> but I'm not going to remember that url every time. It wo
On Feb 26, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>For other people's benefit, LoD == line of development (I think).
Yes. It's just a word that isn't intimately tied to the implementation
details of a specific dVCS.
>> I clone the remote repository using the command in the devguide, so I now
>>
On Feb 26, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>Often (but not always), when you're wanting to do something, there's an
>extension for Mercurial which can be enabled ;)
>http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ShareExtension
You sound like an iPhone commercial: "There's an app for that."
:)
-Bar
On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>You'd have to take this up with Mercurial's BDFL Matt. He is a strong
>advocate for teaching users to learn edit their .hg/hgrc files.
Well, I guess it's doubtful I'd change his mind then. :)
>Regarding Bazaar: FWIW, I periodically retried t
FWIW, this modification to hgeditor does a reasonable approximation of 'bzr
commit' including the diff -u output.
Cheers,
-Barry
#!/bin/sh
#
# This is an example of using HGEDITOR to create of diff to review the
# changes while commiting.
# If you want to pass your favourite editor some other pa
On Feb 27, 2011, at 05:38 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>While I understand the usefulness of the diff feature, it is not useful to
>everyone, e.g. those using almost exclusively ``commit -m message``.
The editor window doesn't pop up when you provide the -m flag, so the diff
output is not relevant.
>
On Feb 28, 2011, at 04:15 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:08:26 -0500
>Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>> >BTW, I had not heard of hgeditor before, and wrote a small hg extension to
>> >do what you want (with HG: prefix :) before I saw that others had alr
1501 - 1600 of 2704 matches
Mail list logo
