Nice!
Python 2.7 is waiting, let's get started! :)
Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
I am trying to figure out how to self sign a py2exe winxp executable
with signtool. Anyone know?
Dear William,
This list (python-dev) is for the development of Python, not the
development with Python. I recommend to use either python-list, or
the py2exe-users list for this question.
Hi,
I'm not sure, if this is the right place to post. The python-docs on
www.python.org are not accessible.
The overview http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html works fine, but no link on the
page i have tried works.
http://docs.python.org/lib/doctest-unittest-api.html
I hotfixed docs.python.org and www.python.org/doc with some cutesy improv --
the URLs changed from .../lib/ to ../library/, and any HTML pages inside
them are completely different. So, any http://docs.python.org/lib/... URL
now redirects to the toplevel http://docs.python.org/library/ (and similar
Thomas Wouters thomas at python.org writes:
If anyone feels particularly frustrated by the old URLs breaking, I wouldn't
mind adding a redirection for each individual URL as long as I don't have to
build that mapping
Well in general URLs aren't supposed to break (except the ones which are
On Oct 2, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:44, Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thomas Wouters thomas at python.org writes:
If anyone feels particularly frustrated by the old URLs breaking,
I wouldn't
mind adding a redirection for each
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of 'else' in the 2.5-and-earlier docs -- needs a better
mapping. Feel free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 2, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Haoyu Bai wrote:
Now almost all the pages on docs.python.org can't be accessed. For
example http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html returns 403 forbidden.
Thanks to Georg and Thomas, the docs should all be fixed now.
-
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of 'else' in the 2.5-and-earlier docs -- needs a
Doug Hellmann wrote:
Perhaps it has already been suggested and rejected for some reason, but
we could include the major/minor version numbers in the URLs. That
would make it easier to rewrite old URLs, and I assume there will be 2.x
and 3.x documentation available online for some period of
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:44, Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Wouters thomas at python.org writes:
If anyone feels particularly frustrated by the old URLs breaking, I
wouldn't
mind adding a redirection for each individual URL as long as I don't have
to
build that mapping
Georg Brandl wrote:
Nevertheless, I will come up with a mapping for the old module URLs,
which is relatively easy.
Best solution of all :)
I was actually only suggesting redirecting to the old docs until such a
mapping was available - but if that mapping will be available fairly
soon, then
Adam Olsen schrieb:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but
On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:17 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of
On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
If linking to the new version could be done easily, we could as well
directly
redirect. The problem is that having that mapping in the first place
is hard.
I was looking for the easy route. If the layout of the new docs
changed
So, we just released and there are a few doc typo bugs being filed -
my question is if all doc-fixes have to wait for 2.6.1/2.7 or if we
can hotfix the 2.6 docs?
-jesse
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Georg Brandl wrote:
Adam Olsen schrieb:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Hellmann schrieb:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a
Tres Seaver schrieb:
Georg Brandl wrote:
docs.pyhton.org/ (note no *) could redirect to docs.python.org/2.6/ and
include a link to docs.python.org/3.0/
We already have archived versioned docs at http://www.python.org/doc/X.Y.
Why not use versioned URLs, but with a link at the top of old
Jesse Noller schrieb:
So, we just released and there are a few doc typo bugs being filed -
my question is if all doc-fixes have to wait for 2.6.1/2.7 or if we
can hotfix the 2.6 docs?
I intend to set things up so that the docs at docs.python.org are continually
rebuilt, just like the /dev docs
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jesse Noller schrieb:
So, we just released and there are a few doc typo bugs being filed -
my question is if all doc-fixes have to wait for 2.6.1/2.7 or if we
can hotfix the 2.6 docs?
I intend to set things up so that the
Jesse Noller wrote:
So, we just released and there are a few doc typo bugs being filed -
my question is if all doc-fixes have to wait for 2.6.1/2.7 or if we
can hotfix the 2.6 docs?
Well the fixes can definitely all go in to SVN on both the trunk and the
maintenance branch.
As to when we
Jesse Noller schrieb:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jesse Noller schrieb:
So, we just released and there are a few doc typo bugs being filed -
my question is if all doc-fixes have to wait for 2.6.1/2.7 or if we
can hotfix the 2.6 docs?
I intend to set
Georg Brandl wrote:
That's true; it's also not what I meant. The versioned docs will of course
always stay there. The question is what to do for URLs that refer to
docs.python.org, but with old filenames.
I still like the idea of redirecting such URLs to the old 2.5.2 docs as
a short-term fix,
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of 'else' in the 2.5-and-earlier docs -- needs a better
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 15:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not a single one, no. The URLs *all* changed. There is not a single
one that's the same. We may be able to do a single rewrite rule for
most of the module-*.html URLs, but everything else -- and there is
quite a lot of
Nick The old doc directories are already kept around (all the way back
Nick to 1.4 in fact: http://www.python.org/doc/1.4/)
Nick As a quick fix for the old links, a rewrite rule to map such links
Nick to the 2.5 docs seems like a very good idea to me. Since old URLs
Nick all
On Oct 2, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
I intend to set things up so that the docs at docs.python.org are
continually
rebuilt, just like the /dev docs were until now.
Wonderful! This should help avoid repeat reports of simple typos.
At one point, we started to separate the
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 15:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick The old doc directories are already kept around (all the way back
Nick to 1.4 in fact: http://www.python.org/doc/1.4/)
Nick As a quick fix for the old links, a rewrite rule to map such links
Nick to the 2.5 docs seems
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure, if this is the right place to post. The python-docs on
www.python.org are not accessible.
This is definitely the wrong place to post. As usual for most sites,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the right place. But please don't bother, we've
Fred Drake schrieb:
On Oct 2, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
I intend to set things up so that the docs at docs.python.org are
continually
rebuilt, just like the /dev docs were until now.
Wonderful! This should help avoid repeat reports of simple typos.
At one point, we started
On Oct 2, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
All Sphinx-generated pages currently have a last update on: in the
footer.
Do you think that suffices for this purpose?
Yes, I do.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake at acm.org
___
Python-Dev
Victor Stinner schrieb:
Hi,
I would like to be able to catch SIGSEGV in my Python code! So I started to
hack Python trunk to support this feature. The idea is to use a signal
handler which call longjmp(), and add setjmp() at Py_EvalFrameEx() enter.
On windows, ctypes catches fatal errors
http://drj11.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/python-and-bragging-about-c89/
mentions that Objects/frameobject.c contains a C99-style comment, which
means that Python 2.6 won't build on AIX.
shouldn't we use a suitable gcc option for the buildbots to prevent that
from happening?
/F
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
http://drj11.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/python-and-bragging-about-c89/
mentions that Objects/frameobject.c contains a C99-style comment, which
means that Python 2.6 won't build on AIX.
shouldn't we use a suitable gcc option for the buildbots to prevent that
from
Christian Heimes lists at cheimes.de writes:
Ouch! This shouldn't have happend. I'm going to discuss the matter on
#python-dev. Perhaps --with-pydebug could add more restrict error
checking to the Makefile like -std=c89 -pedantic -Werror
As discussed on python-dev, I think it should also
Just now, Christian decided for option 2...
Georg
This is another thing that needs to be discussed: how to handle backports
between 2.6 and 2.7. Up to now, we backported changes from trunk to maint
manually, but after the experience we've had with svnmerge, I see several
possibilities:
1.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 1, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I
am happy to announce the release of Python 2.6 final. This is the
production-ready version of the latest in the Python 2
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
http://drj11.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/python-and-bragging-about-c89/
I've found several more occasions of // comments and one usage of
inline. We *really* should have some way to compile Python with C89 checks
Python doesn't compile with the -pedantic option but it
Why not use versioned URLs, but with a link at the top of old pages
saying they're outdated, linking to the new version. Either way they
should update their links, but this way you don't shoot them in the
foot to do it.
Wouldn't that require changes to the old pages?
Regards,
Martin
2. Do bugfixes in trunk, and merge them to maint via svnmerge.
Arguments as for 1, but reversed: many blocks, but less problems with 3k.
I'm not so sure that we need to block all the changes that we don't
want, though: it would be sufficient to just not merge them, right?
(of course,
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Do bugfixes in trunk, and merge them to maint via svnmerge.
Arguments as for 1, but reversed: many blocks, but less problems with 3k.
I'm not so sure that we need to block all the changes that we don't
want,
A large merge queue would accumulate making hard for someone to pick
out the bugfixes. Of course, people could just merge fixes right after
they apply it to the trunk, though.
I think they should. To my knowledge, nobody goes through the changelog
anymore trying to find out what needs
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not use versioned URLs, but with a link at the top of old pages
saying they're outdated, linking to the new version. Either way they
should update their links, but this way you don't shoot them in the
foot to do it.
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
A large merge queue would accumulate making hard for someone to pick
out the bugfixes. Of course, people could just merge fixes right after
they apply it to the trunk, though.
I think they should. To my knowledge, nobody goes through the changelog
anymore trying to
Wouldn't that require changes to the old pages?
Hopefully just to whatever common templating they're using. I'm not
familiar with how they're generated though.
That's exactly the problem: they are generated. I don't think it's
feasible to regenerate them, and still expect the output to be
Thomas Wouters schrieb:
After discussing on #python-dev (briefly), I made the toplevel
directories refer to the new, 2.6 toplevel directories, but deeper URLs
in the old directories redirect to www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/
http://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/. I still think this is the wrong
Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 15:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nick The old doc directories are already kept around (all the
way back
Nick to 1.4 in fact: http://www.python.org/doc/1.4/)
Nick As a quick fix for the old
What should the policy on 2to3 bug fixes be for the maintenance
branch? I'm asking because I remember vaguely someone suggesting that
new 2to3 fixers could fit into that category.
So, should I only merge pure bug fixes, or do I get to stretch the
definition a little?
--
Cheers,
Benjamin
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What should the policy on 2to3 bug fixes be for the maintenance
branch? I'm asking because I remember vaguely someone suggesting that
new 2to3 fixers could fit into that category.
So, should I only merge pure bug
Le Friday 03 October 2008 00:13:16 Benjamin Peterson, vous avez écrit :
What should the policy on 2to3 bug fixes be for the maintenance
branch? I'm asking because I remember vaguely someone suggesting that
new 2to3 fixers could fit into that category.
Python3 removes os.getcwdu() and
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Victor Stinner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Friday 03 October 2008 00:13:16 Benjamin Peterson, vous avez écrit :
What should the policy on 2to3 bug fixes be for the maintenance
branch? I'm asking because I remember vaguely someone suggesting that
new 2to3 fixers
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
shouldn't we use a suitable gcc option for the buildbots to prevent that
from happening?
Which one specifically?
I suggest we add -std=c89 to CFLAGS. We could also add a new target
called buildbot to the Makefile that appends -std=c89 -Werror to
CFLAGS. I don't think
shouldn't we use a suitable gcc option for the buildbots to prevent that
from happening?
Which one specifically?
I suggest we add -std=c89 to CFLAGS.
That needs thorough testing, in particular across many old Linux
distributions. It might be that some sets of Linux header files
rely on GNU
shouldn't we use a suitable gcc option for the buildbots to prevent
that from happening?
Which one specifically?
I suggest we add -std=c89 to CFLAGS.
Martin That needs thorough testing, in particular across many old Linux
Martin distributions. It might be
Georg Brandl wrote:
Fred Drake schrieb:
On Oct 2, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
I intend to set things up so that the docs at docs.python.org are
continually
rebuilt, just like the /dev docs were until now.
Will you do the same for the 3.0 version?
http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jesse Noller schrieb:
So, we just released and there are a few doc typo bugs being filed -
my question is if all doc-fixes have to wait for 2.6.1/2.7 or if we
can hotfix the 2.6 docs?
I intend to set things up so that the
57 matches
Mail list logo
