On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.orgwrote:
Robert Brewer writes:
Python 3.1 was released June 27th, 2009. We're coming up faster on the
two-year period than we seem to be on a revised WSGI spec. Maybe we
should shoot for a bytes of a known encoding
On 10/01/2011 17:24, Ian Bicking wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
step...@xemacs.org mailto:step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Robert Brewer writes:
Python 3.1 was released June 27th, 2009. We're coming up faster
on the
two-year period than we seem to be on
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
The kind of object PJE was referring to is more like Ruby's strings, which
do not embed the encoding inside the bytes themselves but have the encoding
as a kind of annotation on the bytes, and do lazy transcoding when
Hello,
I would like to advocate again for the removal of the unit test
needed stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
contributors and bug reporters.
Regards
Antoine.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:18:12 -0800
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
OK, so the sentence is poorly phrased, but in the list of tasks it is
labeled explicitly as intermediate when one is comfortable with the
process, not a newbie. Does that alleviate the worry you both have?
It does seem to
I would like to advocate again for the removal of the unit test
needed stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
contributors and bug reporters.
Speaking as a bug triager:
+1 to rename it “test needed”
+1 to remove
Am 10.01.2011 19:21, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to advocate again for the removal of the unit test
needed stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
contributors and bug reporters.
Speaking as a bug
+1 to rename it “test needed”
+1 to remove it
I meant either one would be an improvement.
Regards
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Wiadomość napisana przez Ned Deily w dniu 2011-01-08, o godz. 22:13:
In article
aanlktiko1hd_axwboesam-3mq85tw8p1scmwot96x...@mail.gmail.com,
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 13:04, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
In article e1pawh0-0001py...@dinsdale.python.org,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:24, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:18:12 -0800
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
OK, so the sentence is poorly phrased, but in the list of tasks it is
labeled explicitly as intermediate when one is comfortable with the
I would like to advocate again for the removal of the unit test
needed stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
contributors and bug reporters.
Perhaps a different wording would be preferred to removal. Suppose a
On 10/01/2011 19:05, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:24, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
mailto:solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:18:12 -0800
Brett Cannon br...@python.org mailto:br...@python.org wrote:
OK, so the sentence is poorly
Le 10/01/2011 20:11, Eli Bendersky a écrit :
Perhaps a different wording would be preferred to removal. Suppose a
reviewer accepts a patch but asks for a test before committing it.
Well, we usually forewarn that a patch should include tests and docs, so
I think “patch needed” or “patch review”
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:11:23 +0200
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to advocate again for the removal of the unit test
needed stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
contributors and bug
Le lundi 10 janvier 2011 à 19:26 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
Fair enough. I will remove it.
Well, *often* a test that exposes the issue can be written - and if so
it is a useful exercise (surely).
Yes, well, that's a matter of useful exercise for the contributor vs.
required to
On 10/01/2011 19:31, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le lundi 10 janvier 2011 à 19:26 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
Fair enough. I will remove it.
Well, *often* a test that exposes the issue can be written - and if so
it is a useful exercise (surely).
Yes, well, that's a matter of useful exercise
Le lundi 10 janvier 2011 à 19:37 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
On 10/01/2011 19:31, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le lundi 10 janvier 2011 à 19:26 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
Fair enough. I will remove it.
Well, *often* a test that exposes the issue can be written - and if so
it is a
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
+1 to rename it “test needed”
+1 to remove it
I meant either one would be an improvement.
+1 to remove it
Let's remove it first, an then decide if another stage is necessary.
The problems with unit test needed is that
1.
On 10/01/2011 19:48, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Éric Araujomer...@netwok.org wrote:
+1 to rename it “test needed”
+1 to remove it
I meant either one would be an improvement.
+1 to remove it
Let's remove it first, an then decide if another stage is
Antoine Then we would need a whole array of checkboxes for things
Antoine missing in a patch:
Antoine - missing unit test
Antoine - missing documentation changes
Antoine - other things?
How about replacing all the possibilities with
patch incomplete
then elaborate in
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM, brett.cannon
python-check...@python.org wrote:
..
+.. todo::
+ Figure out where to put instructions for triagers on filling out issue
+ fields properly
Some field titles are clickable and linked to field choices
descriptions. Maybe these could be
On Jan 10, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:
I'm using the case-sensitive variant of HFS+ since 10.4. It works, I like it
and you get ./python with it.
I realize that this isn't a popularity contest for this feature, but I feel
like I should pipe up here and mention that it breaks some
In article dc9e7e39-f945-4b26-9f58-cb5655d0d...@twistedmatrix.com,
Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2011, at 1:37 PM, ®©ukasz Langa wrote:
I'm using the case-sensitive variant of HFS+ since 10.4. It works, I like
it and you get ./python with it.
I realize that
Ian Bicking writes:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
step...@xemacs.orgwrote:
Robert Brewer writes:
Python 3.1 was released June 27th, 2009. We're coming up faster on the
two-year period than we seem to be on a revised WSGI spec. Maybe we
should
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:37 AM, s...@pobox.com wrote:
How about replacing all the possibilities with
patch incomplete
then elaborate in the issue itself how that is the case.
+1
This is much clearer than lumping incomplete patches in with
nonexistent ones. A process that goes needs
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 22:37, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Antoine Then we would need a whole array of checkboxes for things
Antoine missing in a patch:
Antoine - missing unit test
Antoine - missing documentation changes
Antoine - other things?
How about replacing all the
26 matches
Mail list logo
