-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
(No big deal
though). More importantly, there seem to be no images, e.g.:
http://code.python.org/static/images/ico_folder.gif
Looks like it should be
http://code.python.org/loggerhead/
-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//kRjid7j0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
But then again, having one scenario that shows svn's weakness directly
wouldn't hurt. I could see a scenario where I start to fix something
in branch A, realize that a deeper issue needs to be fixed, l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
As I said, one of the scenarios already says patches can be whatever
the DVCS supports the best; plain diffs, branches, etc. And the
comments for that scenario will point out any perks from that featur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
Here's a real-life Python example: http://bugs.python.org/issue2292. I
actually developed that in two separate branches, one depending on the
other: one branch for *just* the changes to functioncalls
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Grepping through Python's sources tells me that we have over 2,000
"XXX" comments. The thing that irks me about them is that the have a
very slow rate of being resolved, since they usually act mor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 4, 2008, at 12:21 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
(2) New repo formats are added frequently, and taking advantage of new
features often requires upgrading your repo format. So-called
lightweight checkouts can be especially annoying as t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
Nope, I have no idea how to edit those pages properly, sorry. I'm
sure somebarryone does.
I do. I've been meaning to update those pages to mention loggerhead
too. I'll try to do that today.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 4, 2008, at 1:00 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
This is true. Performance is not everything to everyone. Most Bazaar
users don't care at all; they say things like "who cares about a few
seconds in bzr log when it gets the merge right almost
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 4, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
I don't agree with completely dismissing performance just because it's
Python. Yes, Python is fast enough most of the time, but when it's
not we
put a lot of effort into making it faster. That's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 4, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Dennis Benzinger wrote:
Am 03.11.2008 17:54, Thomas Wouters schrieb:
[...]
FWIW, I put one up this weekend, and it seems to be intact and OK.
(bzr+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/python/2.6/ or
http://code.python.org/python/2.6/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
I'll freely admit a (not very) hidden bias here - the slowness of an
initial clone (or going through the "download a shared repo, unpack
it, create a branch and update" rigmarole) makes this a nasty test
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Without a doubt the bazaar branches need a little more loving
attention
to make them a full working demo, but it's mostly details. The
branches
*do* contain the whole history, and not just 'sele
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Yes. My understanding, though I haven't tried it yet, is that newer
versions of the bzr-svn plugin do a good job at a full conversion.
Basically, every svn branch becomes a bzr branch and all svn t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I disagree. This doesn't scale to Python size. For distributed VC to
work, somebody has to maintain a repo 24x7. Python has to do this for
the trunk; the additional burden for contributed pat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
You need not feel that way. It's not you---the flexibility of dVCS
means that until the Powers That Be promulgate a Workflow, this will
be ambiguous.
You're absolutely right. Adopting a dvcs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 6:35 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
If it isn't already there, suspending work on something to work on
something else would make a very nice scenario to cover, as it is
something even the core devs sometimes have to deal with.
Indeed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 06:23, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
I have emailed some people who have shown allegiance to a specific
DVCS to seeif they are willing to fi
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/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
-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 this release's star deve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 8, 2008, at 7:24 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Skip Montanaro and others hackers started to port the
multiprocessing module
to Python 2.4 and 2.5.
http://code.google.com/p/python-multiprocessing/
Is it planned to include it in 2.4.6 and/or
-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 v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 11, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to
optimize
Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
Just trying to clarify the focus: would you like to see any of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 11, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le Wednesday 12 November 2008 00:14:40, vous avez écrit :
There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to
optimize
Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
Just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 13, 2008, at 9:01 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Bazaar. Take a look at the developers' pages on python.org, they
mention
that a BZR checkout is available. I know that
-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 would mean that
Python 2.6.1 should be ready on 03-Dec (well, if Python 3.0 is ready
then!).
I'm still planning the las
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Good catch, this is a bug IMO and we should fix it in 2.6.1 and
3.0rc3.
Ah, a /real/ test of the time machine! Though you can avoid the risk
of a rip in the time-space continuum by trying to
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
From my point of view bi-monthly release are too much. For a ?.?.1
release two months are fine because several issues are found by 3rd
party authors. But after that a release every quarter is suffi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 19, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Martin, I'm keen on figuring out a way to reduce your workload, and
also
to coordinate releases better between us. I /think/ with timed
releases
I can tag a little early and give you something
/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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Let's try this for 3.0rc4 then.
The current release is rc2. Skipping rc3 would confuse people'-)
Yeah, my calendar was wrong, but the PEP (and more importantly...
code!) was right :).
There is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I believe we are on track for releasing Python 3.0 final and 2.6.1
tomorrow. There is just one release blocker for 3.0 left -- Guido
needs to finish the What's New for 3.0.
This is bug 2306.
So that Martin can have something to work with when
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On this page:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
The text "This is a proeuction release" should probably read "This is
a production release". It would give a better first impression :)
Fixe
-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/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 4, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
From: "A.M. Kuchling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think we should also have a statement upon on python.org about
future plans: e.g.
* that there will be a Python 2.7 that will incorporate what we
lea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 4, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was
built,
just not posted correctly.
That doesn't mean very much. I built
/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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 6, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since the release of 3.0, several critical issues have come to our
attention. Namely, the builtin cmp function wasn't r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 7, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think it is still timely when fixed in January or February.
In fact, releasing it still in December might not be possible,
due to the limited time available.
The cmp() /
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 7, 2008, at 11:17 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I don't recall such policy, and I can't see anything wrong with
including performance fixes in a bug fix release. Maybe you were
confusing this with whether performance fixes can be considered
rele
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 8, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
Where would adding a (undocumented) get_filename() method to
ZipImporter
objects for the benefit of the -m switch fit then?
Why not call it _get_filename() in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 15, 2008, at 7:44 PM, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Martin> The mailing list python-3...@python.org is now closed. All
Martin> further discussion of Python 3.x takes place on
Martin> python-...@python.org.
Maybe set up a simple email alias
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 you think we can get 3.0.1 out on December 24th? Or should we wait
until after Chr
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 19, 2008, at 9:44 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Do you think we can get 3.0.1 out on December 24th?
I won't have physical access to my build machine from December 24th to
January 3rd.
Okay. Let's just push it until after the new year then.
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
In the old days this would have happened by a process known in the
British training world as "sitting with Nellie" - doing the work next
to, and directly supervised by, someone who had been doing it a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
A little offtopic: it seems to me it is a flaw of svn, that it
encourages the model of two classes of developers, those with a
commit
access (first class) and those without it (second class).
Y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
We can setup such a branch, unless you reconsider and try bazaar
first.
There wouldn't be any pushing it back upstream, though - you would
still
need to go through the tracker for all changes.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
1. I think that a patch can not e.g. capture a moved, renamed or
deleted file.
Further, it can not handle e.g. things like the executable bit or
similar
things that SVN otherwise does manage. T
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
It's always possible to make exceptions. It's not just about the VCS;
there have been requests to replace Apache, NTP, Zope, Postgres,
MoinMoin, and a few other packages. There have been many proble
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Maybe this is a false choice. Maybe the problem is standardizing on
Debian stable. If that distribution isn't giving us and our users
what
we need, maybe we need to re-evaluate that choice. Ye
-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-
Version: Gn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 4, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Aahz writes:
all. Because I was lazy, last weekend I finally did a two-stage
upgrade
from 7.10 to 8.04 and then 8.10, with zero noticeable problems.
The scary one is two independent repo
-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 newest wire
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 6, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Simon Cross wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
This is a years-old problem that is not going to be fixed overnight
(unfortunately). But it is known and is being worked on (moving to a
DVCS, writi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Now that Python 2.6 and 3.0 are in maintenance mode, it's time to
start thinking about Python 2.7 and 3.1. While I've enjoyed my redux
service as your release manager for 2.6 and 3.0, I believe it's time
to get some new blood in here.
To that
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Stéphane Konstantaropoulos wrote:
I wrote an extension to the imaplib library that implements a
"BODYSTRUCTURE"
parser.
For this I wrote an extension to email.message.Message that allows a
message
structure to be lo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been playing with 'from __future__ import unicode_literals' just
to see how unicode unclean some of my code was. Almost everything was
fairly easy to fix but I found two interesting situations. One seems
fairly shallow and might arguably
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 16, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Is the issue that in foo(**{'a': 1, 'b': 1}) the 'a' and 'b' are
unicode and not acceptable as keyword arguments? I agree that should
be fixed, though I'm not sure it'll be easy.
I'm not sure yo
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 17, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" > wrote:
Index: Lib/optparse.py
===
--- Lib/optparse.py(revision 68465)
+++
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brett, thanks for putting this PEP together!
On Jan 23, 2009, at 3:39 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Somebody will have to make a decision. Ultimately, Guido will have to
approve the PEP, but it might be that he refuses to make a choice of
specific DVC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 24, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
As part of my impressions I plan to also look at usage on top of svn
as a viable alternative if no clear winner comes about. That way if
they work well directly on top of svn we can write up very clea
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 25, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
(*) I'm probably missing something, but ISTM that committers can
already
use the DVCS - they only need to create a patch just before
committing.
This, of course, is somewhat more complicated tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 25, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Jared Grubb wrote:
Regardless of the outcome, those that want to use SVN can use SVN,
and those that want to use "chosen DVCS" can use that. In the end,
which is the more "lossy" repository? It seems like if the chan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 27, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
With the extensive changes in the works, Python 3.0.1 is shaping-up
to be a
complete rerelease of 3.0 with API changes and major usab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 27, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I was going to object on principle to Raymond's suggestion to rip
out the
operator module functions in Python 3.0.1.
I thought it was for 3.1?
Sorry, I probably misread Raymond's suggestion.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 14:31, "Martin v. Löwis"
wrote:
My preference is to drop 3.0 entirely (no incompatable bugfix
release)
and in early February release 3.1 as the real 3.x that migrators
ou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 27, 2009, at 3:48 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Releasing 3.1 6 months after 3.0 sounds reasonable; I don't think
it should be released earlier (else 3.0 looks fairly ridiculous).
It sounds like my approval of Raymond's removal of certain
(a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
If something gets left in 3.0.1 and then ripped-out in 3.1, I think
we're
doing more harm than good. Very little code has been ported to 3.0
so far. One there is a base, all changes become mo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:31 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
If we intend for 3.0 to be a 'beta release', or to weaken the 'no
features in micro releases' rule, then fine; but we have to be *really
clear about it*. Are we? (The 3.0 release page calls it
prod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'd like to find a middle ground. We can all agree that the users of
3.0 are a small minority compared to the 2.x users. Therefore I think
we can bend the rules more than we have done for the rece
-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, are you
v
-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 committer IMO -- MA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
To get the ball rolling, I have a candidate for discussion.
Very late in the 3.0 process (after feature freeze), the bsddb code
was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
We should have insisted that bsddb not be taken out until a
replacement
was put in. The process was broken with the RM insisting on feature
freeze early in the game but letting tools like bsd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 8:34 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I think that the important question is "can the 3.0.x series be made
'viable' in less than the time frame for 3.1?" If not, I really have
to think it's DOA from the point of view of folks who
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea
of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1. Personally I
say we continue to peer pressure him as I think a new major
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the
idea
of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1.
I don't think he actually said that (in fact, I think he said the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Barry Warsaw
wrote:
To clarify: cruft that should have been removed 3.0 is fine to
remove for
3.0.1, for some definition of "should have been".
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:03, Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
1. Barry, who is the release manager for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon
wrote:
Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release
dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door
qu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 31, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
How about Friday February 13?
Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly better)
Feb 6 won't work for me. Would the 20th be better for you Martin?
Barry
-BEGIN PGP S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly
better)
Feb 6 won't work for me. Would the 20th be better for you Martin?
No, they are both busy days - Feb 13 is then slightly
On Jul 31, 2011, at 06:26 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>That seems very questionable - the rationale for running the test
>suite twice by default to ensure PYC generation is working correctly
>still holds.
Agreed. I'd at least like to have seen discussion on python-dev instead of
just in the tracker.
2001 - 2100 of 2704 matches
Mail list logo