On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
alexan...@peadrop.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd only
close them *after* the 2.7 release (after determining that they
On Jun 10, 2010, at 09:01 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
The current stumbling block isn't the language itself, it's the lack of
support from third-party libraries. GSoC is addressing some of these
issues, but so far we (the PSF, the dev community, anybody else except
R. David Murray) haven't really
On 6/10/2010 2:48 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
alexan...@peadrop.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Martin v. Löwismar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd only
close them
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:15 -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran orsent...@gmail.com wrote:
it would still be a good idea to
introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
deviating from the process, but it could be an option considering
Chris McDonough writes:
It might be useful to copy the identifiers and URLs of all the backport
request tickets into some other repository, or to create some unique
state in roundup for these.
A keyword would do. Please don't add a status or something like that,
though.
On 9 June 2010 07:26, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:15 -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran orsent...@gmail.com wrote:
it would still be a good idea to
introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On that basis I'm +1 on Alexandre's proposal. A 3rd party planning on
working on a 2.8 release (not that I think such a party currently
exists) can step up and extract the relevant tickets for their later
reference if they
Paul Moore wrote:
On 9 June 2010 07:26, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:15 -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran orsent...@gmail.com
wrote:
it would still be a good idea to
introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7.
On 09/06/2010 13:56, Steve Holden wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
On 9 June 2010 07:26, Chris McDonoughchr...@plope.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:15 -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaranorsent...@gmail.com wrote:
it would still
On Jun 09, 2010, at 01:15 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran orsent...@gmail.com wrote:
it would still be a good idea to
introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
deviating from the process, but it could be an option considering that
2.7
Michael Foord wrote:
How does throwing away information represent moving forward?
I'm inclined to agree. There is no *need* to close these tickets now.
I have to say I am surprised by the current lack of momentum behind 3.x,
but I do know users who consider that their current investment in
On Jun 09, 2010, at 04:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Many of them are not keen on having to maintain Python2 for much
longer, but some of them may have assets codified in Python2
or interests based Python2 that they'll want to keep for
more than just another 5 years.
E.g. we still have customers
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Jun 09, 2010, at 04:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Many of them are not keen on having to maintain Python2 for much
longer, but some of them may have assets codified in Python2
or interests based Python2 that they'll want to keep for
more than just
On Jun 09, 2010, at 09:13 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Note that Python 2.7 will be *maintained* for a very long time, which
should satisfy those folks who still require Python 2. Anybody on
older (and currently unmaintained) versions of Python 2 will not care
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Jun 09, 2010, at 09:13 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Note that Python 2.7 will be *maintained* for a very long time, which
should satisfy those folks who still require Python 2. Anybody on
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 08:12, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Jun 09, 2010, at 04:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Many of them are not keen on having to maintain Python2 for much
longer, but some of them may have assets codified in Python2
or interests based Python2 that they'll want to keep
On Jun 8, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/6/8 Alexandre Vassalotti alexan...@peadrop.com:
Is there is any plan for a 2.8 release? If not, I will go through the
tracker and close outstanding backport requests of 3.x features to
2.x.
Not from the core development team.
The
On 6/9/2010 4:07 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Chris McDonough writes:
It might be useful to copy the identifiers and URLs of all the backport
request tickets into some other repository, or to create some unique
state in roundup for these.
Closed issues are not lost. They can
On 6/9/2010 10:42 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Steve Holden wrote
How does throwing away information represent moving forward?
'Closing' a tracker issue does not 'throw away' information', it *adds*
information as to current intention.
It's certainly not fair to require all core developers
On 6/9/2010 4:07 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Closed issues are not lost. They can still be searched and the result
downloaded.
A keyword would do. Please don't add a status or something like that,
though.
I believe Type: feature request; Version: 2.7; Resolution wont fix
should do
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:40, Eric Smith e...@trueblade.com wrote:
On 6/9/2010 4:07 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Closed issues are not lost. They can still be searched and the result
downloaded.
A keyword would do. Please don't add a status or something like that,
though.
I believe
It might be useful to copy the identifiers and URLs of all the backport
request tickets into some other repository, or to create some unique
state in roundup for these. Rationale: it's almost certain that if the
existing Python core maintainers won't evolve Python 2.X past 2.7, some
other group
Am 09.06.2010 05:58, schrieb Alexandre Vassalotti:
Is there is any plan for a 2.8 release? If not, I will go through the
tracker and close outstanding backport requests of 3.x features to
2.x.
Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd
only close them *after* the 2.7
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jun 09, 2010, at 09:13 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Note that Python 2.7 will be *maintained* for a very long time, which
should satisfy those folks who still require Python 2. Anybody on
older (and currently unmaintained) versions of
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 6/9/2010 10:42 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Steve Holden wrote
How does throwing away information represent moving forward?
'Closing' a tracker issue does not 'throw away' information', it *adds*
information as to current intention.
It's certainly not fair to require
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jun 09, 2010, at 01:15 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran orsent...@gmail.com wrote:
it would still be a good idea to
introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
deviating from the process, but it could be an
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd only
close them *after* the 2.7 release (after determining that they won't apply
to 3.x, of course).
There aren't that many backport requests, anyway,
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Facundo Batista
facundobati...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, closing the tickets as won't fix and tagging them as
will-never-happen-in-2.x or something, is the best combination of
both worlds: it will clean the tracker and ease further developments,
and will allow
Is there is any plan for a 2.8 release? If not, I will go through the
tracker and close outstanding backport requests of 3.x features to
2.x.
-- Alexandre
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
alexan...@peadrop.com wrote:
Is there is any plan for a 2.8 release? If not, I will go through the
tracker and close outstanding backport requests of 3.x features to
You mean, simply mark them as Wont-Fix and close. I doubt, if this is
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran orsent...@gmail.com wrote:
it would still be a good idea to
introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
deviating from the process, but it could be an option considering that
2.7 is the last of 2.x release.
I disagree.
If
31 matches
Mail list logo
