Guido van Rossum wrote:
Sure, we lose the ability to add last-minute -3 warnings. But I think
that's a pretty minor issue (and those warnings have a tendency to
subtly break things occasionally, so we shouldn't do them last-minute
anyway).
Hey, if we catch all the things that need -3 warnings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raymond With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
Raymond to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
Raymond won't become useless on Windows builds.
My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for 2.7 and
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st
goal. We
have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do
not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I
don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do
care about it having 2.6.
I've talked with my contact at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Even if I can't contribute very much at the moment, I'm still +1 to
that.
I doubt Python would get nice publicity if we released a 3.0 but had
to
tell everyone, but don't really use it yet, it may
Barry 3777 long(4.2) now returns an int
Looks like Amaury has already taken care of this one.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
up, for
Barry Warsaw wrote:
3781 warnings.catch_warnings fails gracelessly when recording warnings
I just assigned this one to myself - I'll have a patch up for review
shortly (the patch will revert back to having this be a regression test
suite only feature).
Cheers,
Nick.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We
have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do not have
a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have high hopes for rectifying all
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We
have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do not
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on
Christian Heimes lists at cheimes.de writes:
Ok, from the marketing perspective it's a nice catch to release 2.6 and
3.0 on the same day. Python 2.6.0 and 3.0.0 released makes a great
headline.
It's not only the marketing. Having both releases in lock step means the
development process is
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Heimes lists at cheimes.de writes:
Ok, from the marketing perspective it's a nice catch to release 2.6 and
3.0 on the same day. Python 2.6.0 and 3.0.0 released makes a great
headline.
It's not only the
Antoine Pitrou writes:
It's not only the marketing. Having both releases in lock step means the
development process is synchronized between trunk and py3k, that there is no
loss of developer focus, and that merges/backports happen quite naturally.
As usual, in theory precision is infinite,
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues
Raymond With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
Raymond to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
Raymond won't become useless on Windows builds.
My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for 2.7 and 3.1.
I'm a bit less sure
20 matches
Mail list logo
