On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:10:31 +0800
Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com wrote:
What finally drove me to write the original post, was that working with
the new bytearray and memoryview object in 2.7 made me realize that
they don't interoperate with other classes in a natural way and so
Hello,
As a leap of faith, I have added Stephen Hansen's x86 Leopard buildbot
to the list of stable bots. Stephen has been very proactive in
diagnosing and fixing issues (thank you!).
Antoine.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I think people need to stop viewing the difference between Python 2.7
and Python 3.2 as this crazy shift and view it from python-dev's
perspective; it should be viewed one follows from the other at this
point. You can view it as Python 3.2 is
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400
Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
Let's say that 20% of the code on PyPI is just junk;
it's unfair to expect 100% of all code ever to get ported. But, still:
with this back-of-the-envelope estimate of the rate of porting, it will
take over 50
Right now, Kristján is burning off his (non-fungible) enthusiasm in this
discussion rather than addressing more 2.x maintenance issues. If 3.x
adoption takes off and makes a nice hockey stick graph, then few people
will care about this in retrospect. In the intervening hypothetical
Kristján Valur Jónsson kristjan at ccpgames.com writes:
Let’s move the current ‘trunk’ into /branches/afterlife-27. Open it for
submissions from people such as myself that use 2.7 on a regular basis and are
willing to give it some extra love.
Just curious - what specific new features or
Actually I would like code like
s = socket()
...
header = struct.unpack(i, s)
In other words, struct should interact with files/streams directly, instead
of
requiring me to first read a chunk who's size I manually have to determine
etc.
That is easy to achieve using the
While maintainers' convenience is a valid valid concern and some level
of idiosyncrasy is healthy to allow active maintainers to code in
their preferred style, I think users' convenience should come first
when it conflicts with that of maintainers. Remember, code is written
once and read
Vinay Sajip vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk writes:
need to add, i.e. things which cannot be catered for by release27-maint? Or is
this just about the *principle* of having a 2.8?
Never mind - I've just picked up the extra posts on this thread, which for some
reason didn't show up in my reader
Brett Cannon wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing. But I certainly wasn't thinking
of a new fork of python. And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new 3.x
features backported.
I'm more thinking of a place where usability
The tests prove that r85874 does not break the build.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Le 28/10/2010 22:52, anatoly techtonik a écrit :
Can anybody summarize the outcome?
Is it that renaming BadZipfile to BadZipFile with backward compatible
alias and
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com:
Brett Cannon wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing. But I certainly wasn't thinking
of a new fork of python. And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new 3.x
features backported.
It's obvious that a large proportion of the existing python-dev'ers will
not participate in such a project, but why should we try to stop someone
else to work on it ?
I propose to stop this discussion of theoretical projects, and only
restart it when someone actually proposes to lead such a
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com:
Brett Cannon wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing. But I certainly wasn't thinking
of a new fork of python. And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new
On Oct 27, 2010, at 09:19 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
In the name of completeness for people not aware of the issue,
http://bugs.python.org/issue9893 discusses actually removing these
files in preference to files maintained by others. If Misc/Vim were to
be dropped we could place a text file much
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
It's obvious that a large proportion of the existing python-dev'ers will
not participate in such a project, but why should we try to stop someone
else to work on it ?
I propose to stop this discussion of theoretical projects, and only
restart it when someone actually
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com:
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
He's not saying we shouldn't welcome them; we just don't want to it
attached to python-dev.
That new team could be part of python-dev, couldn't it ? Not necessarily
the mailing list, but the team of Python developers. Much
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com
wrote:
I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm still too pessimistic about this
and I could be wrong. But given the relatively minimal amount of effort
required to let 2.x bugs continue to get fixed under the aegis of
On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:34 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
To put your mind at ease, Barry, I'd not want to do that either :)
Phew! But I wasn't worried, 'cause I know you're not insane. (Though the
fact that you've effectively inherited the email package does bring that into
question. :)
But by
On Oct 25, 2010, at 02:28 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
I've just checked in a change to logging into the py3k branch (r85835),
including doc changes and tests, for providing slightly more flexibility in
alternative format styles for logging.
Basically, Formatter.__init__ gets an extra optional keyword
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Comments welcome. Assuming there are no strong objections asking for
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Oct 25, 2010, at 02:28 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
I've just checked in a change to logging into the py3k branch (r85835),
including doc changes and tests, for providing slightly more flexibility in
alternative format styles
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2010-10-22 - 2010-10-29)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues stats:
open2496 (+41)
closed 19519 (+56)
total 22015 (+61)
Open issues with patches:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/29/2010 10:21 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com:
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
He's not saying we shouldn't welcome them; we just don't want to it
attached to python-dev.
That new team could be part of
On 02:51 am, br...@python.org wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristj�n Valur J�nsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
Hi all.
This has been a lively discussion.
My desire to keep 2.x alive in some sense is my own and I don't know
if anyone shares it but as a member of this community I think I'm
allowed to voice
Infrastructure sounds to me like code for money.
No, it's rather volunteer time. Of course, people keep proposing
that this should be replaced by hired time that gets paid from
donations, but all such proposals so far got stuck at implementation
details (i.e. it's actual work that nobody has
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:41:19 -
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
Brett is speaking for himself here (and he never claimed otherwise!).
However, decisions about where to allow the use of the Python
trademark are made by the Python Software Foundation.
The point is not to allow the use of
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:57:54PM +0200, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
Infrastructure sounds to me like code for money.
No, it's rather volunteer time. Of course, people keep proposing
that this should be replaced by hired time that gets paid from
donations, but all such proposals so far got
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 09:11 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400
Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
Let's say that 20% of the code on PyPI is just junk;
it's unfair to expect 100% of all code ever to get ported. But,
still:
with this
On 10/26/10 7:08 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Vinay Sajipvinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Comments welcome. Assuming there are no strong objections asking for reversion
of this change, I'll publicise to the wider community in a few days.
It strikes me as a solid,
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
gl...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I think people need to stop viewing the difference between Python 2.7
and Python 3.2 as this crazy shift and view it from python-dev's
perspective; it should be
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12 AM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
gl...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
[snip]
First off, unless you have a lot of information I don't, there's no
reason at
2010/10/29 martin.v.loewis python-check...@python.org:
Author: martin.v.loewis
Date: Fri Oct 29 20:20:08 2010
New Revision: 85934
Log:
Issue #9377: Use Unicode API for gethostname on Windows.
Modified:
python/branches/py3k/Misc/NEWS
python/branches/py3k/Modules/socketmodule.c
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12:28AM -0700, geremy condra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
Let's take PyPI numbers as a proxy. There are ~8000 packages with a
Programming Language::Python classifier. There are ~250 with Programming
Langauge::Python::3. Roughly
On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Mark's position is different. His words suggest that he thinks that
Python.org owes the users something, although if pressed I imagine
he'd present some argument that more users will lead to development of
a better language. I think
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote:
I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also keeping
Python 2 compatibility. This incurs some overhead, and basically means I am
still really only using Python 2 features. So in some respects, my Python 3.x
support is only
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote:
I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also
keeping
Python 2 compatibility. This incurs some overhead, and basically means I
am
still really
On 10/29/2010 9:42 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I don't see why we should not welcome a team of new developers who want
to continue working on the 2.x series.
Given the number of issues on the tracker, I think it would be great if
there were some new 2.7-focused developers that would work on
Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases if
python 2.7? This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing sonmight
provide better predictability and customer service to our users. I might like
to see monthly releases but even quarterly would probably be
On 10/29/2010 2:41 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12:28AM -0700, geremy condra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
Let's take PyPI numbers as a proxy. There are ~8000 packages with a
Programming Language::Python classifier. There are ~250 with
That's a much better idea!
Sent from my digital lollipop.
On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote:
I like Python 3, I am using it for my
2010/10/29 Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org:
I had a brief conversation with Michael Foord yesterday and he's writing code
that works in 2.4 through 3.2, so for *some* code bases, it's tricky and ugly,
but possible.
If the application does not involve a lot of I/O, 2.4 - 3.2 support
by using a
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:54:19 -0400
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases
if python 2.7?
This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing sonmight
provide better predictability and customer service to our users.
It certainly doesn't have to.
Sent from my digital lollipop.
On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:54:19 -0400
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases
if python
2010/10/29 Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org:
Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases
if python 2.7? This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing
sonmight provide better predictability and customer service to our users. I
might like to see monthly
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 21:54, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases
if python 2.7? This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing
sonmight provide better predictability and customer service to our users. I
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote:
I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also keeping
Python 2 compatibility. This incurs some overhead, and basically means I am
still really only using Python 2 features. So in some respects, my
Am 29.10.2010 21:54, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed
releases if python 2.7? This is probably more a question for
Benjamin but doing sonmight provide better predictability and
customer service to our users. I might like to see monthly
For those of you who have not noticed, Antoine committed a patch that
raises a ResourceWarning under a pydebug build if a file or socket is
closed through garbage collection instead of being explicitly closed.
I have started to go through the test suite to fix as many of these
cases as possible,
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Even if there were no trademark, I think it would be wrong for a
separate project to adopt the same name without agreement from the
original group of contributors. I have never seen a fork which didn't
change the name of the project.
+1
--
Steven
The API for the unittest module has grown fat (the documentation
is approaching 2,000 lines and 10,000 words like a small book).
I think we can improve learnability by focusing on the most
important parts of the API.
I would like to simplify and clean-up the API for the unittest module
by
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
That's an average of 4 (if you include .4) or 4.5 months (PEP 6
specifies 6 months, but some of the parts seem outdated). I think
releasing each month might be a bit ambitious, but it would be great
to drive down the
On 29/10/2010 23:14, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
The API for the unittest module has grown fat (the documentation
is approaching 2,000 lines and 10,000 words like a small book).
I think we can improve learnability by focusing on the most
important parts of the API.
I would like to simplify and
On 29/10/2010 23:29, Michael Foord wrote:
[snip...]
Besides de-documenting those four redundant methods,
I propose that assertItemsEqual() be deprecated just like
its brother assertSameElements(). I haven't found anyone
who accurately guesses what those methods entail based
on their method
On 29/10/2010 23:56, Michael Foord wrote:
On 29/10/2010 23:29, Michael Foord wrote:
[snip...]
Besides de-documenting those four redundant methods,
I propose that assertItemsEqual() be deprecated just like
its brother assertSameElements(). I haven't found anyone
who accurately guesses what
On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:11 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
Just to clarify. The following fails in Python 3:
sorted([3, 1, 2, None])
If you want to compare that two iterables containing heterogeneous types
have the same members then it is tricky to implement correctly and
assertItemsEqual
56 matches
Mail list logo
