On Jul 13, 2011, at 02:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Now, the what's new for 2.7 doesn't actually *say* we made that change
>and I can't find any evidence for it in NEWS either, so I think the
>bug is actually in the __future__ module (and docs:
>http://docs.python.org/library/__future__).
I think
On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>Ok, apparently the decision to make hard links for executables dates at
>least back to:
That still doesn't explain *why* hardlinks were originally chosen instead of
symlinks. In the absence of any other compelling argument against it, I think
First off, kudos to PJE for his work on this PEP. He really had the key
insight for this new approach, and did a great job of explaining his vision in
a clear way so that I think everybody over on import-sig "got it".
On Jul 20, 2011, at 08:57 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>At 06:46 PM 7/20/2011 +1000, Ni
On Jul 19, 2011, at 05:21 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>OK, so I've released the first iteration of the email6 package on pypi
>as email-6.0.0a1. After install you import it as email6. This will
>allow anyone curious and/or motivated to test it out under Python 3.2.
>I'm especially interested in a
On Jul 29, 2011, at 08:24 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>Alright, I think there's now a sufficiently wide consensus to move the
>documentation of Lib/test and Lib/test/support in particular to the
>devguide, which raises a question:
I haven't been following this thread, so I caught up on Gmane.
I'm s
On Jul 29, 2011, at 02:07 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>Why is it part of stdlib though? Isn't the stdlib something that's exposed
>to all Python programmers? How should an ordinary programmer (not a core
>dev) know some parts of stdlib are out of limits, if they are even
>documented and appear in the
On Jul 30, 2011, at 01:02 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>It's worthwhile because it is what the devguide is for: documenting
>how to *change* Python, rather than just using it as it is delivered
>to you. There's a clear transition from user of Python to developer of
>Python: you stop treating the standa
On Jul 29, 2011, at 05:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> test.support *is* part of the stdlib.
>
>We have lots of internal APIs which are not documented, though.
>And test.support *is* for internal use.
The solution then is to rename test.support to test._support to make it clear
it's an internal i
On Jul 29, 2011, at 12:13 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>In that case, you are working *on Python*. Not using Python.
My point was, it's a fine line between the two.
>Personally, I always thought the devguide should be part of Docs anyway.
>It isn't because people didn't want it versioned along si
On Jul 31, 2011, at 01:23 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>It sounds to me like you're really objecting to the devguide living in
>a separate clone. This doesn't bode well for the prospects of ever
>splitting the stdlib out from the CPython interpreter core...
Actually, no. I'm objecting to moving docum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 21, 2007, at 12:28 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I disagree. The documentation infrastructure of Python should only
> consider the needs of Python itself. If other people can use that
> infrastructure for other purposes, fine - if they find that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 22, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Martin Blais wrote:
> That, and the ability to already parse it from Python and more easily
> convert to other formats (one of LaTeX's weaknesses), are the only
> benefits that I can see to switching away from LaTeX. I h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 23, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Martin Blais wrote:
> I often have the need for a generic object to use as the default value
> for a function parameter, where 'None' is a valid value for the
> parameter.
I do the same thing for 'get' calls, where None i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 31, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I just finished going through PEP 4 and adding DeprecationWarnings in
> 2.6for the various modules that were lacking the warning for some
> reason or
> another ...
>
> ... except for mimetools, multif
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 7, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Aahz wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2007, "Knut A. Wikstr?m" wrote:
>>
>> Python is a great language. We all know. But I have tried
>> implementing
>> Python into C/C++ applications, and have a) had a lot of trouble
>> gettin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I do know, though, that Thomas kept talking about moving us over to
> Bazaar (or some distributed VCS) and instead of having a ton of svn
> branches we have distributed VCS branch for each feature in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 13, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I'll see if I can set up some public bzr mirrors of our svn
> repository for people to try it out. Or you could just use the bzr-
> svn plugin to get a local repository.
Silly me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 13, 2007, at 11:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Barry> diffs are so 20th century. :)
>
> How do you compare two versions of something without some sort of
> diff?
Well okay, you caught me being flippant. :)
Sure, you visually compare
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 13, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Sure, you visually compare with diffs, but you apply those changes
>> with
>> merges. This means the end of posting patches because instead
>> what you
>> would do is post the url to a branc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 13, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Facundo Batista wrote:
> 2007/7/13, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> with merges. This means the end of posting patches because instead
>> what you would do is post the url to a branch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I can't speak of bzr.
I don't use or even have Windows, but this page says there are native
Windows binaries available (yes Bazaar is pure Python):
http://bazaar-vcs.org/BzrOnPureWindows
There's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 23, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Talin wrote:
> In PEP 9 there's a requirement that PEPs must follow the "emacs
> convention" of 2 spaces after a period. (I didn't know this was an
> emacs
> convention, I thought it was a convention of people who used
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 13, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've seen similar behavior in MS VC++ (long ago, dunno what it does
> these days). It would read files with \r\n and \n line endings, and
> whenever you edited a line, that line also got a \r\n en
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 15, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
> It's been a while since I wrote any Python C code, though -- are there
> better tools these days for debugging reference counting? Anyone
> know?
No, but /that/ would make an awesome sprint topi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:30 AM, Paul Dubois wrote:
> The weekly summaries from the new bug tracker are disappearing
> somewhere
> between the tracker and python-dev. My attempt to post one by hand was
> rejected by python-dev-owner (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> On Monday 10 September 2007, Paul Dubois wrote:
>> As a small boy I once knew wrote, I must not use bad words. (:->
>
> It's OK to use them about Barry, though, surely?
>
> *wave* Hi Barry.
It's ok
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 11, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> I'm packaging up the SSL support for Python 2.3, and I'd like to be
> able to include the unit test for it along with the package. Ideally,
> I'd like to be able to say
>
> % python setup.py buil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 12, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> The SSL tests currently use SSL-protected ports on gmail.com and
> Verisign for testing. That's not what they are for; I think we should
> shift to using SSL-protected ports on python.org somewhere.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 13, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> I see that base64.b64encode and base64.standard_b64encode no longer
>> introduce line breaks into the output strings, as base64.encodestring
>> does. Shouldn't there be an option on one of them to d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 14, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> I think that's probably right. I just added the PEM line-wrapping to
> the code in the ssl module. Though I hate to keep adding
> line-wrapping code here and there... Perhaps just adding a utility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 14, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> Does anything in textwrap already do the trick? If not, that might
>> be the best place to refactor similar code to.
>
> Yes, textwrap.fill. Thanks for pointing it out.
/me tries to remember that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 22, 2007, at 8:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm always daunted by the prospect of trying to implement file
> locking.
> This just came up again in SpamBayes where we have never protected our
> pickle files from corruption when multiple p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's not clear that any of these implementations is going to be
> perfect.
> Maybe none ever will be.
I would agree with this. You write a program and know you need to
implement some kind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 26, 2007, at 4:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Barry> I don't think any one solution will work for everybody.
> I'm not
> Barry> even sure we can define a common API a la the DBAPI, but if
> Barry> something were to make it i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I'd like to make this [propset] a standard built-in,
>>
>> +1 -- I find this to be an attractive syntax
>>
>>> I'd also like to change
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 1, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 10/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As long as we're all tossing out ideas here, my 2¢. I vastly prefer
>> this:
>>
>> On 02:43 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On 10/31/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
>
> What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
> open for better suggestions.
>
The only other thing I can suggest is __python__ built __root__ works
fine for me too.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 29, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Graham Horler wrote:
> Perhaps someone here can draw some inspiration from __monty__ python's
> flying __circus__. It would be nice to have a name with a pythonic
> __ground__.
Clearly then, it should be called __bruce__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1 for __universal__
>
> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> alone and rename the __built
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 2, 2008, at 9:08 PM, Aahz wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>
>> The standard library, my personal code, third-party packages, and
>> my employer's code base are filled with examples of the following
>> pattern:
>>
>> try
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:01 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> We could easily resolve that issue, if we add a per-user site-packages
> dir to sys.path in site.py (this is already done for Macs).
+1. I've advocated that for years.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 7, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 6:32 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:01 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>> We could easily resolve that issue, i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 7, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> Python automatically adds ~/.python/site-packages to sys.path; this
>> is
>> added /before/ the system site-packages file. An open question is
>> whether it needs to go at the front of the list.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 7, 2008, at 11:30 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> Open question: should we add yet another environment variable to
>> control
>> this? It's pretty typical for apps to expose such a thing so that
>> the
>> base directory (e.g. ~/.python) can be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 7, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
>
> In that case how about:
>
> ~/.local/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages
>
> or:
>
> ~/local/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages
>
> I believe both of these locations are already in use by various
> systems
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 10, 2008, at 9:07 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 2008-01-10 14:31, Eric Smith wrote:
>> (I'm posting to python-dev, because this isn't strictly 3.0 related.
>> Hopefully most people read it in addition to python-3000).
>>
>> I'm working on backp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 14, 2008, at 2:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ~/bin comes from the convention of "./configure --prefix=$HOME", as
> autoconf suggests. This means users must have visible directories in
> their home folder named (among other things) "bin", "
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 27, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Along with the release of 2.5.2, I would also like to release
> new versions of 2.3 and 2.4. These will be security-only releases,
> and include a few security-relevant bug fixes that are still bei
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> If the intent is really to do a source-only releases mostly for system
>> vendors, then I don't see the harm in leaving those changes in. I mean,
>> a vendor is going to cherry pick the ones they want anyway, so let's
>> just make it easy for them to do this. That might
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 28, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Would it help if I branch
> branches/release23-maint/Lib/email to branches/email-2.3 ?
> Or should I branch the entire release23-maint to email-2.3?
> (branches are cheap in subversion)
> (*)
I ju
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:01 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> What do you think of the above?
>
> Sounds fine to me. I won't touch this then for the moment,
> please let me know when you are done rearranging things.
Cool, I'll try to get to this today.
- -B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:01 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> What do you think of the above?
>
> Sounds fine to me. I won't touch this then for the moment,
> please let me know when you are done rearranging things.
All done! Thanks.
- -Barry
-BEGIN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
> GUD (the Emacs debugger interface) works well with gdb and pdb.
Don't forget pdbtrack which is in python-mode.el (don't know about
python.el). Ken Manheimer wrote this and it rocks. It basically
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Finally, for you Ubuntu developers, I'm also using the the pre-
>> release
>> XFT GNU emacs, which is very pretty. So far, despite stern and dire
>> warnings, it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2008, at 5:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Barry> The reason there are two Python modes is the same reason
> there is
>Barry> FSF Emacs and XEmacs .
>
> I remember something about some GNU person submitting an enormous
> patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2008, at 7:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> I should have asked this before, but what's so special about core
>>> (Python?) development that the tools should be different than for
>>> non-core development?
>
>Brett> Usually the cor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 21, 2008, at 11:21 AM, skip.montanaro wrote:
> Author: skip.montanaro
> Date: Thu Feb 21 17:21:15 2008
> New Revision: 60919
>
> Modified:
> peps/trunk/pep-0008.txt
> Log:
> Replace "looks ugly" with a hopefully more concrete explanation of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I've volunteered to be the release manager for Python 2.6 and 3.0.
It's been several years since I've RM'd a Python release, and I'm
happy to do it again (he says while the medication is still
working :). I would like to get the n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 22, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>
> Why not just skip the specifics except to say < 80 characters
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 22, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Aahz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
Why not just skip the specifics except to say < 80 characters for
all
lines? Don't mention 72, 79 or any other number than 80:
>>
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 21, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Why should docstrings and comments be limited to 72 characters when
>> code is limited
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 21, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Ron Adam wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> Why should docstrings and comments be limited to 72 characters when
>> code is limited to 79 characters? I ask because there is an ongoing
>> debate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I've volunteered to be the release manager for Python 2.6 and 3.0.
>> It's been several years since I've RM'd a Python release, and I'm
>> happy to do it again (he says while the m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 24, 2008, at 10:06 PM, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 6:52 PM, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yesterday's bug day was another success, closing 48 issues. Several
>> committers were there: Facundo Bastista, Georg Bra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 24, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> I'd also like for us to consider doing regular monthly releases.
>> Several other FLOSS projects I'm involved with are doing this to very
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 24, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> It very well might. See Christian Heimes's follow up re: Windows
>> builds. OTOH, I'm okay if at least for the alphas, the binary
>> builds lag behind the source releases, though I'd like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Larry,
On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Bugbee, Larry wrote:
> A question Do you know if OpenSSL's applink.c will be included in
> the Windows builds? If so, and I hope it is, great!
Honestly, I have no idea! I don't have any Windows machines
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 25, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> From the follow ups, it sounds like others can pitch in here. A
>> question though: is it reasonable to hold up the monthly release
>> because
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:04 AM, Neal Norwitz wrote:
>
> It's been pretty bad the last month or so. Although it's getting
> better now. I would recommend these are the golden bots based on what
> have traditionally been fairly stable help expose errors:
On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:45 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 9:13 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
>> Doing a code search finds a fair number of users of the module:
>> Zope's
>> BDBStorage, ...
>
> The BDBStorage is long gone at this point. Few are so unfortunate as
> to remember it (though a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 28, 2008, at 2:49 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Hey Barry!
Hi Christian!
> When are you planing to freeze the code of the trunk and branches/py3k
> for the upcoming alpha releases? I'll merge the last modifications
> from
> 2.6 to 3.0 in a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Chris Mellon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hey Barry!
>>
>> When are you planing to freeze the code of the trunk and branches/
>> py3k
>> for the upcoming alp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 28, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On Feb 28, 2008, at 2:49 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
>>> Hey Barry!
>> Hi Christian!
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 28, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Barry Warsaw writes:
>
>> I plan on cutting the alphas for 2.6 and 3.0 at about 6pm Eastern
>> (UTC-5) time or 2300 UTC. Let's freeze the tree one hour prior to
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:21 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Scott Dial schrieb:
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>>> Alterntaively, I guess you could just suggest that people check the
>>>> buildbot page for their platforms before d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 29, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Think of it this way: the alphas are for /us/ as much as for our
>> users.
>
> In that vein, I think the monthly alphas may also help as a means
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 29, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I think that it probably is desirable to to put that deadline pressure
> on. Individuals who rush to get their work in, and cause alpha-to-
> alpha regressions, can be advised to wait in the f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 29, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On Feb 28, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>>> -BEG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I tried, I really did.
Python 2.6 is nearly ready, I'm mostly trying to figure out how to
build the web pages properly. I haven't started on 3.0, but huge
thanks go to Brett Cannon, Neal Norwitz, Mark Dickinson, and Fred
Drake for helping out t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
> If you can document the web stuff you have to do I will formalize it
> as
> a procedure for use in future releases.
Hi Steve,
In this case, there was a lot more work to do because 2.6 wasn't tied
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
>>
>>> If you can document the
ll to be determined.
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 v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBR8mlu3EjvBPtnXfVAQKePAQAgx6w9wztfJaSWkbKrbwur2U6t6o5aIY5
pyMa00CZWY06p8099BztcSjgp5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just announced the 2.6a1 and 3.0a3 releases, and am thawing both
branches.
Just some quick feedback in case anybody is interested. First, huge
thanks go to Brett Cannon, Neal Norwitz, Mark Dickinson and Fred Drake
for their help last night. A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> In this case, there was a lot more work to do because 2.6 wasn't tied
>> in at all. Add to the fact that I didn't have any experience
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> I *never* sync changes from trunk Misc/NEWS to py3k Misc/NEWS. From my
> point of view it doesn't make sense to put Python 2.6 changes in the
> same section as Python 3.0 changes. Moving changes fr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> As of 4:50 PM EST, the links to Windows installers give 404 File Not
>> Found.
>>
>> I gather that they are still in process,
>> and notice that there is no public c.l.p. announcement.
>
> I just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> With apologies to Anthony, welease is crack. I made pretty good
>> progress once I ditched it and starting doing things manually.
>> Between now and the next alpha I intend to work on a com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 3, 2008, at 1:48 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> But it would be really nice if the configure fix for 2.5 was
>>> backported to 2.4.5 since Zope is still on 2.4 and Mac OS X skipped
>>> system builds for 2.4 going direct from 2.3 -> 2.5.
>>
>>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 2, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community,
>> I'm
>> happy to announce the first alpha release of Python 2.6, and the
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 28, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> The problem is that I make separate releases of the standalone email
>> package from these branches, so that means that email 3.0.3 or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2008, at 7:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Barry> The dependency on gtk is unnecessary and means it can
> effectively
>Barry> only be run on Linux. Specifically it means I can't do
> releases
>Barry> on OS X. I don't see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> The fact that Barry found Anthony's process unusable is IMO not a
> reflection on either Barry or Anthony's code. Release processes seem
> to be highly personal, even within the same project.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 2, 2008, at 1:54 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Barry Warsaw schrieb:
>
>> PEP 101 is sorely out of date, especially with regards to updating
>> web
>> content and the Python documentation. I think I now know how to
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 1, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Alex Martelli wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> ...
>>> I also propose translations of the shorter text to important
>>> languages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 16, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Martin v. Lwis wrote:
>> New sprint idea: getting all (inc. trunk) the buildbots green by
>> Thursday. Anyone interested?
>
> I think the chance to achieve that is close to zero.
How broken do you want the next month
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 16, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Python 3.0 and 2.6 are coming along really nice. I am optimistic that
> we can make the projected August date for the final releases of 2.6
> and 3.0. As you may remember, Barry (the new release m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 16, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> However, looking at the calendar, I think we need to do a little more
> planning and management than we've typically done for Python releases.
> A final release in August means that we should plan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 16, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> I mentioned this to Guido and got a positive response, so let me
>> state
>> my pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 16, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> 'critical' is fine (or 'immediate'). My problem before was that I
> couldn't do one query that gave me all the critical issues for both
> 2.6 and 3.0. That ce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 17, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Right now at the sprint I am going through a list of issues Neal and I
> compiled of what needs to happen to get 2.6/3.0 out the door (although
> the list is pretty much 2.6-specific). They are all b
1701 - 1800 of 2704 matches
Mail list logo
