On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Heller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Is it really that bad? Once 3.0 is released, it's not like we're going
to be patching 2.6 and 3.0 all that much.
And unfortunately so. The 2.5 branch doesn't get the attention that it
should, let alone the 2.4 branch. We will continue to have them (even
if only for security patches).
Regards,
I know there's a transition to new IP addresses going on for the
python.org machines, but Thomas or Sean probably needs to do something
with the DNS for this.
IIUC, it would be sufficient if these addresses get recognized as local.
Meanwhile, I have disabled the new interfaces.
Regards,
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
On Oct 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
So now that we've released 2.6 and are working hard on shepherding 3.0
out the door, it's time to worry about the next set of releases. :)
I propose that we dramatically shorten our release cycle for 2.7/3.1
to
Terry Reedy schrieb:
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?
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 12:26:30 pm Nick Coghlan wrote:
(Tangent: the above two try/except examples are perfectly legal Py3k
code. Do we really need the pass statement anymore?)
I can't imagine why you would think we don't need the pass statement. I
often use it:
* For
This may be more complicated than it sounds, because you'd probably
add a very general requirement-indicating feature to PyPI, not merely
a 'supports 3.0' Boolean on each record, and requirements are actually
pretty complicated: alternative packages, specific version numbers...
Can you
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:45:27AM +0200, Georg Brandl wrote:
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
two problems: The libraries they depend on aren't ported, and the
KLOC of code they care about are hard and tedious work to port, not
to mention that it typically isn't viewed as productive work by those
who
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
This may be more complicated than it sounds, because you'd probably
add a very general requirement-indicating feature to PyPI, not merely
a 'supports 3.0' Boolean on each record, and requirements are actually
pretty complicated: alternative
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
This may be more complicated than it sounds, because you'd probably
add a very general requirement-indicating feature to PyPI, not merely
a 'supports 3.0' Boolean on each record, and requirements are actually
pretty
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 3, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Wow! I guess release.py is going to get really automated then. =) That
or you are going to manage to con more of us to help out (and even cut
the release ourselves).
release.py is really coming
Brett Cannon schrieb:
Last not least, there should be a *central* location on python.org where
specifically all resources on 2-3 transition are collected. Talks,
documents, links, and some crucial information many people seem to miss,
such as how long the 2.x series will at least be
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
On Oct 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
So now that we've released 2.6 and are working hard on shepherding 3.0
out the door, it's time to worry about the next set of releases. :)
I
Well, since for 95% of the (potential) Py3k users it is more important than
e.g. the import rewrite in Python (no stab at you intended, Brett), it is
something someone will have to get around to doing.
I'm not excusing myself; in fact, I'd be happy to work on this, but overall
the team
[replying to both Georg and Martin]
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, since for 95% of the (potential) Py3k users it is more important than
e.g. the import rewrite in Python (no stab at you intended, Brett), it is
something someone will have to get
2008/10/4 Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So the mailing list is a good idea. Perhaps it should just be
python-porting so that it can also be used for people who have
problems with minor releases?
+1. I'd try to help on that list, also.
--
.Facundo
Blog:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
This may be more complicated than it sounds, because you'd probably
add a very general requirement-indicating feature to PyPI, not merely
a 'supports
Setuptools declares dependencies, but does not add a Python version
requirement,
like what was proposed in PEP 345 (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/)
with a new metadata called 'Requires Python'
Even if the problem is fixed in short term with a Trove classifier,
Why would that be
18 matches
Mail list logo
