That seems to argue for doing rc2 on Sunday the 18th. If I tag the
release some time Saturday, you could have the binaries by Sunday
right?
Correct.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Oct 14, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
That seems to argue for doing rc2 on Sunday the 18th. If I tag the
release some time Saturday, you could have the binaries by Sunday
right?
Correct.
Cool. I've updated the Python Release Schedule calendar to reflect
the new dates.
It would be nice to get this issue resolved out for 2.6.4:
http://bugs.python.org/issue4120
The problem is that extensions built with 2.6.x will not work
when used with a User-only installation of Python on machines that
don't already have the MS VC90 CRT DLLs installed system-wide.
As
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
It would be nice to get this issue resolved out for 2.6.4:
http://bugs.python.org/issue4120
The problem is that extensions built with 2.6.x will not work
when used with a User-only installation of Python on machines that
don't already have the MS VC90 CRT DLLs
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 08:27 AM 10/13/2009 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Are we on track to release 2.6.4 final this Sunday or do we need
another rc?
Yesterday, Tarek committed another setuptools related fix and said
that he was going to run
As this bug already exists in 2.6.2, I don't think the change is
eligible for 2.6.4.
In addition, I want to review it, which I won't be able to until
Sunday.
Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a
chance to look at the patch.
That won't make the change more
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
One identical to test_build_ext_path_with_os_sep, but that explicitly uses a
'/' (rather than os.sep) will identify the problem I'm referring to, when
run on Windows.
It's common practice to use /-separated paths in
At 05:16 PM 10/13/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Yes the doctest was pretty fuzzy about what is an extension name. It's
will be improved in 2.7.
The current code is doing os.path.join()'s to join the Extension name
with the build path,
leading to the collateral damage you are mentioning. To fix
On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:01 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a
chance to look at the patch.
That's not a good option, IMO. We have a known broken 2.6.3 out there
and we owe it to our users to correct our mistake and given them the
On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
various projects under win32.
It's planned to night.
The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
projects on linux and win32 (and bith when possible)
Great
On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
various projects under win32.
It's planned to night.
The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
projects
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:01 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a
chance to look at the patch.
That's not a good option, IMO. We have a known broken 2.6.3 out there
and we owe it to our users to correct our mistake and
On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:07 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Would it be reasonable to shorten that period, if the fix for the
mentioned problem gets ready for prime time earlier ?
I think there are many 2.6.x bugs queued up for after 2.6.4 is
released. I'm not at all opposed to setting a date
We don't need to wait too long for 2.6.5 though. A few months would be
appropriate.
MAL Would it be reasonable to shorten that period, if the fix for the
MAL mentioned problem gets ready for prime time earlier ?
I think it would be worthwhile to prioritize all outstanding bugs
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 at 12:57, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tarek Ziad? wrote:
I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
various projects under win32.
It's planned to night.
The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
projects on
On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:41 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
I always thought that the idea of a release candidate was that if
there
were any fixes _at all_ that there would be a new rc. Only when no
bugs needing fixed are found does the rc turn into the actual release.
But I understand that this is
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:07 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Would it be reasonable to shorten that period, if the fix for the
mentioned problem gets ready for prime time earlier ?
I think there are many 2.6.x bugs queued up for after 2.6.4 is
released. I'm not at all opposed to
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:41 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
I always thought that the idea of a release candidate was that if there
were any fixes _at all_ that there would be a new rc. Only when no
bugs needing fixed are found
On Oct 13, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File umbrella_rules.py, line 6, in module
UmbrellaRule()
File unbrella_rules.py, line 4, in UmbrellaRule
raise
I always thought that the idea of a release candidate was that if there
were any fixes _at all_ that there would be a new rc. Only when no
bugs needing fixed are found does the rc turn into the actual release.
This was also my understanding; that's the point of calling it
candidate. Since
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 08:27 AM 10/13/2009 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Are we on track to release 2.6.4 final this Sunday or do we need
another rc?
Yesterday, Tarek
On Oct 13, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I always thought that the idea of a release candidate was that if
there
were any fixes _at all_ that there would be a new rc. Only when no
bugs needing fixed are found does the rc turn into the actual
release.
This was also my
So, we can either make Sunday's release rc2 and do the final release one
week later, or I can try to get an rc2 out in the next day or two, with
a final release mid-next week.
Thoughts?
I won't be able to produce Windows binaries until Saturday. Now sure how
that would fit into the within
I strongly urge another release candidate. But then, I am not doing the
work, so take that advice for what it is...
On Oct 14, 2009 10:18 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Oct 13, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: I always thought that
the idea of a release ...
No, but let's do
On Oct 13, 2009, at 10:15 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
So, we can either make Sunday's release rc2 and do the final
release one
week later, or I can try to get an rc2 out in the next day or two,
with
a final release mid-next week.
Thoughts?
I won't be able to produce Windows binaries until
25 matches
Mail list logo
