Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In 2.3.6, there wouldn't just be that change, but also a few other
changes that have been collected, some relevant for Windows as well
why not just do a 2.3.5+security source release, and leave the rest to the
downstream maintainers?
/F
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 18:54, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Martin v. L�wis wrote:
In 2.3.6, there wouldn't just be that change, but also a few other
changes that have been collected, some relevant for Windows as well
why not just do a 2.3.5+security source release, and leave the rest to
the
Anthony Baxter wrote:
why not just do a 2.3.5+security source release, and leave the rest to
the downstream maintainers?
I think we'd need to renumber it to 2.3.6 at least, otherwise there's the
problem of distinguishing between the two. I'd _hope_ that all the
downstreams will have
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 19:09, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
But I'm certainly thinking if there's a 2.3.6, it's going to be 2.3.5
with the email fix and the unicode repr() fix, and that's it.
sounds good to me. how much work would that be, and if you're willing to
coordinate, is there anything
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Steve Holden schrieb:
The other thing to watch out for is that I (or whoever) can still do local
work on a bunch of different files
the point of my previous post is that you *shouldn't* have to edit a
bunch of different files to make a new release.
Indeed. I seem to
On Sunday 15 October 2006 21:23, Steve Holden wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Steve Holden schrieb:
The other thing to watch out for is that I (or whoever) can still do
local work on a bunch of different files
the point of my previous post is that you *shouldn't* have to edit a
bunch of
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
Subsequent release. This is still largely a manual process - I search for all
the references to the previous release, update them, then read through it for
missed bits. I then update the text bits that need to be changed. There's all
sorts of minor variations there -
Josiah Carlson schrieb:
I've got a build setup for 2.3.x, but I lack the Wise Installer. It may
be possible to use the 2.4 or 2.5 .msi creation tools, if that was
sufficient.
I don't think that would be appropriate. There are differences in usage
which might be significant to some users, e.g.
Brett Cannon wrote:
I know AMK was experimenting with rest2web as a possible way to do the
web site. There has also been talk about trying out another system.
But I also know some people would rather put the effort into improving
Pyramid.
You forgot the ponies!
Once again, it's a
Anthony Baxter wrote:
The other thing to watch out for is that I (or whoever) can still do local
work on a bunch of different files
the point of my previous post is that you *shouldn't* have to edit a
bunch of different files to make a new release.
/F
For reference, here's my effbot.org release procedure:
1) upload the distribution files one by one, as soon as they're
available. all links and stuff will appear automatically
2) update the associated description text through the web, when
necessary, as an HTML fragment. click save to
Anthony Baxter wrote:
For reference, here's my effbot.org release procedure:
1) upload the distribution files one by one, as soon as they're
available. all links and stuff will appear automatically
2) update the associated description text through the web, when
necessary, as an HTML
On Friday 13 October 2006 16:59, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
yeah, but *you* are doing it. if the server did that, Martin and
other trusted contributors could upload the files as soon as they're
available, instead of first transferring them to you, and then waiting
for you to find yet another
On 10/13/06, Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 16:59, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
yeah, but *you* are doing it. if the server did that, Martin and
other trusted contributors could upload the files as soon as they're
available, instead of first transferring them to
On Friday 13 October 2006 20:35, Bob Ippolito wrote:
With most consumer connections it's a lot faster to download than to
upload. Perhaps it would save you a few minutes if the contributors
uploaded directly to the destination (or to some other fast server)
and you could download and sign it,
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I know, the
Mac
build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build similarly for
Fred. I don't know what Martin has to do for the Windows build.
Actually, for
On Friday, October 13, 2006, at 01:10PM, Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 20:35, Bob Ippolito wrote:
With most consumer connections it's a lot faster to download than to
upload. Perhaps it would save you a few minutes if the contributors
uploaded directly to
On Friday, October 13, 2006, at 12:36PM, Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be fair, (thanks to Ronald) the Mac build is entirely automated by
a script with the caveat that you should be a little careful about
what your environment looks like (e.g. don't install fink or macports,
or to
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Anthony Baxter wrote:
The other thing to watch out for is that I (or whoever) can still do local
work on a bunch of different files
the point of my previous post is that you *shouldn't* have to edit a
bunch of different files to make a new release.
Indeed. I
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
I know AMK was experimenting with rest2web as a possible way to do the
web site. There has also been talk about trying out another system.
But I also know some people would rather put the effort into improving
Pyramid.
You forgot the ponies!
Steve Holden schrieb:
The other thing to watch out for is that I (or whoever) can still do local
work on a bunch of different files
the point of my previous post is that you *shouldn't* have to edit a
bunch of different files to make a new release.
Indeed. I seem to remember suggesting a
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Heller schrieb:
Yes. But I've switched machines since I last build an installer, and I do
not
have all of the needed software installed any longer, for example the Wise
Installer.
Ok. So we are technically incapable of producing the
[Thomas Heller]
Yes. But I've switched machines since I last build an installer,
and I do not
have all of the needed software installed any longer, for example the Wise
Installer.
[Martin v. Löwis]
Ok. So we are technically incapable of producing the Windows binaries of
another 2.3.x
Tim Peters schrieb:
FYI, I still have the Wise Installer. But since my understanding is
that the Unicode buffer overrun thingie is a non-issue on Windows,
I've got no interest in wrestling with a 2.3.6 for Windows.
In 2.3.6, there wouldn't just be that change, but also a few other
changes
I've had a couple of queries about whether PSF-2006-001 merits a 2.3.6.
Personally, I lean towards no - 2.4 was nearly two years ago now. But I'm
open to other opinions - I guess people see the phrase buffer overrun and
they get scared.
Plus once 2.4.4 final is out next week, I'll have cut 12
Anthony Baxter wrote:
16 releases in 12 months would just about make me go crazy.
is there any way we could further automate or otherwise streamline or
distribute the release process ?
ideally, releasing (earlier release + well-defined patch set) should be
fairly trivial, compared to releasing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 4:08 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I've had a couple of queries about whether PSF-2006-001 merits a
2.3.6.
Personally, I lean towards no - 2.4 was nearly two years ago now.
But I'm
open to other opinions - I guess people see
Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I've offered in the past to dust off my release manager cap and do a
2.3.6 release. Having not done one in a long while, the most
daunting part for me is getting the website updated,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Perhaps all that is needed from both a practical and public relations
viewpoint is the release of a 2.3.5U4 security patch as a separate
file
listed just after 2.3.5 on the source downloads page
On Thursday 12 October 2006 18:18, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Anthony Baxter wrote:
16 releases in 12 months would just about make me go crazy.
is there any way we could further automate or otherwise streamline or
distribute the release process ?
It's already pretty heavily automated (see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I
know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build
similarly for
Fred. I don't know what Martin has
On Oct 12, 2006, at 10:25 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I
know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build
On Friday 13 October 2006 06:25, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I
know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build
similarly for
Fred. I don't know what
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
Why can't we get buildbot to do most or all of this?
Very easy. Because somebody has to set it up. I estimate
a man month or so before it works.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build similarly for
Fred. I don't know what Martin has to do for the Windows build.
Actually, for 2.3.x, I wouldn't do the Windows
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 4:08 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I've had a couple of queries about whether PSF-2006-001 merits a
2.3.6.
Personally, I lean towards no - 2.4 was nearly two years ago now.
But I'm
open to other
Fredrik Lundh schrieb:
ideally, releasing (earlier release + well-defined patch set) should be
fairly trivial, compared to releasing (new release from trunk). what do
we have to do to make it easier to handle that case?
For the Windows release, I doubt there is much one can do. The
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 06:43:40AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 06:25, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I
know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:30:49PM +0200, Georg Brandl wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I've offered in the past to dust off my release manager cap and do a
2.3.6 release. Having not done one in a long while, the most
daunting part for me is getting the website updated, since I have
none
Gregory P. Smith schrieb:
three macs with some virtual machines could take care of this (damn
apple for not allowing their stupid OS to be virtualized). that said,
i'm not volunteering to setup an automated system for this but i've
got good ideas how to do it if i ever find time or someone
On Friday 13 October 2006 05:30, Georg Brandl wrote:
I'm I the only one who feels that the website is a big workflow problem?
Assuming you meant Am I, then I absolutely agree with you.
--
Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
IMHO thats a backwards view; I'm with Barry. Requiring human
intervention to do anything other than press the big green go button
to launch the official release build process is an opportunity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Of course, that makes the idea die here and now. Without volunteers
to do the actual work, it just won't happen.
True, and there's no carrot/stick of a salary to entice people into
doing what
On 10/12/06, Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 05:30, Georg Brandl wrote: I'm I the only one who feels that the website is a big workflow problem?Assuming you meant Am I, then I absolutely agree with you.
I have touched the web site since the Pyramid switch and thus
Brett Cannon wrote:
On 10/12/06, *Anthony Baxter* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 05:30, Georg Brandl wrote:
I'm I the only one who feels that the website is a big workflow
problem?
Assuming you meant Am I, then I absolutely
On Friday 13 October 2006 07:34, Barry Warsaw wrote:
i'm not volunteering to setup an automated system for this but i've
got good ideas how to do it if i ever find time or someone wants to
chat offline. :(
I wish I had the cycles to volunteer to help out implementing this. :(
Well,
Michael Foord wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
On 10/12/06, *Anthony Baxter* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 05:30, Georg Brandl wrote:
I'm I the only one who feels that the website is a big workflow
problem?
Assuming you meant Am I,
On Friday 13 October 2006 12:56, Steve Holden wrote:
The real problem is the more or less complete lack of incremental
rebuild, which does make site generation time-consuming.
That's _part_ of it. There's other issues. For instance, there's probably 4
places where the list of releases is
48 matches
Mail list logo
