On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Eric Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bazaar. Take a look at the developers' pages on python.org, they mention
that a BZR checkout is available. I know that it works (though the initial
checkout is glacially slow) but I don't know what official support it has
or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 13, 2008, at 9:01 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Eric Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bazaar. Take a look at the developers' pages on python.org, they
mention
that a BZR checkout is available. I know that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
On Thursday 30 October 2008, Victor Stinner wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed
version control system is to help break the logjam on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:04 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:04:42AM +, Barry Warsaw wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed
version
control system is to help break the logjam on core
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
A dvcs means that people can publish their branches in a wide variety of
ways. Trusted developers can push their branches to code.python.org.
Non-core developers can use one of the free public dvcs branch hosting
Tarek Ziadé schrieb:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about having two level of devs ?
+ core developers + standard library developers
[cut]
So I'd suggest thinking about developer responsibilities more in terms
of areas of expertise rather
Paul Moore:
3. There's nothing obvious I can do to move an issue forward. Sure, I
can make a comment, but that's about it. I'd like something that
stood a bit more chance of getting noticed (like a status change, or
maybe a list of people who think this is good to apply, which I can
add
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about having two level of devs ?
+ core developers + standard library developers
[cut]
So I'd suggest thinking about developer responsibilities more in terms
of areas of expertise rather than levels of
I have a similar list that I have been thinking about proposing. I did
a blog post about it at
http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-are-typical-steps-issue-goes.html
and received positive feedback:
* triage
* verify bug
* test needed
* needs patch
* patch review
* commit review
*
Hi,
Since some months, I'm trying to improve Python but it's difficult because I'm
not allowed to push patches and I have to wait for some reviews and then for
someone interrested by my patches. Sometimes I just get a good reaction
like nice patch and then nothing. Should I stop sending new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Since some months, I'm trying to improve Python but it's difficult because
I'm not allowed to push patches and I have to wait for some reviews and then
for someone interrested by my patches.
Let me remind you though that I've been mostly unavailable for the past two
weeks at a work conference.
Cool, you're back :-) But my email was not against you.
That's why I set the 3.0 schedule the way I did.
Personnaly, I don't want to get python 3.0 final with some broken modules or
some
On Thursday 30 October 2008, Victor Stinner wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed
version control system is to help break the logjam on core developers.
Yeah, exactly :-) Does anyone already maintain a distributed tree?
Mercurial, GIT, anything else?
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
On Thursday 30 October 2008, Victor Stinner wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed
version control system is to help break the logjam on core developers.
Yeah, exactly :-) Does anyone already maintain a distributed tree?
Mercurial,
Barry Warsaw wrote:
or even decided that we're moving to one. Brett as the head of the
infrastructure committee will have more to say about that.
While it is indeed the infrastructure committee's call (since they'll
shoulder the bulk of the effort in organising further investigation into
the
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
On Thursday 30 October 2008, Victor Stinner wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed
version control system is to help break the logjam on core developers.
Yeah, exactly :-) Does anyone already maintain a distributed tree?
Mercurial, GIT,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:04:42AM +, Barry Warsaw wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed version
control system is to help break the logjam on core developers. True, your
code will still not be able to land in the official branch without core
developer
2008-10-30 16:04 A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał(a):
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:04:42AM +, Barry Warsaw wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed version
control system is to help break the logjam on core developers. True, your
code will still not
On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
SVN supports path-based authorization.
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.serverconfig.pathbasedauthz.html
This has worked well for us with contractors and partners, and isn't
problematic or tedious to
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2008-10-30 16:04 A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał(a):
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:04:42AM +, Barry Warsaw wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed version
control system is to help break the logjam on core
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 30, 2008, at 01:02 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
If Python would be more reactive, more developer will be attracted. The
communication is very important in an open source
2008/10/30 A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:04:42AM +, Barry Warsaw wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed version
control system is to help break the logjam on core developers. True, your
code will still not be able to land in
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just did a quick experiment, checking for trivial documentation
patches I could review, and some things became obvious:
1. There is no way of telling which issues have a patch.
There is a patch keyword that is usually
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how a DVCS will fix anything. The bottleneck is in
assessing patches for inclusion in the master tree; not enough people
are doing that. We'd just end up with lots of proposed branches
waiting to be merged,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Tarek Ziadé [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how a DVCS will fix anything. The bottleneck is in
assessing patches for inclusion in the master tree; not enough people
are doing that.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 06:14, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
On Thursday 30 October 2008, Victor Stinner wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed
version control system is to help break the logjam on core developers.
Yeah,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:50, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 30, 2008, at 01:02 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
[SNIP]
If Python would be more reactive, more developer will be attracted. The
communication is very important in an open
Question - is there anything Roundup can do to help triage? Extra
status or keyword values (has patch,
There is patch keyword already, and a public query Patches
(as well as My Patches)
ready to go, ...)?
We could give more people the right to set the resolution to Accepted.
This is a matter
What about having two level of devs ?
+ core developers
+ standard library developers
We effectively have that already. Many of the committers will
only ever commit to a single module (+docs and tests), as they
volunteered to maintain that very module (e.g. Lars Gustäbel
for the tarfile
Interestingly enough, I consider myself in the standard library
developers RE: the multiprocessing package. I just thought that's how
things broke down unofficially.
It's actually fairly official (see my other message) - you know who you
are. It has been working that way fine for the last few
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:55:38PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
2. Some patches marked as documentation are doc fixes, others seem
to be issues where it has been decided that the behaviour is correct
as is, but needs to be documented. Fair enough, but it's much harder
to assess the latter, and
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis schrieb:
2008-10-30 16:04 A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał(a):
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:04:42AM +, Barry Warsaw wrote:
One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed version
control system is to help break the logjam on core
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:17:02 -0400, A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
On some of my issues (esp. ones relating to curses and mailbox.py), I
feel paralyzed because problems are occurring on platforms I don't
have access to (e.g. FreeBSD). The buildbots will report problems,
but then
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 22:17, A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On some of my issues (esp. ones relating to curses and mailbox.py), I
feel paralyzed because problems are occurring on platforms I don't
have access to (e.g. FreeBSD). The buildbots will report problems,
but then you have
On some of my issues (esp. ones relating to curses and mailbox.py), I
feel paralyzed because problems are occurring on platforms I don't
have access to (e.g. FreeBSD). The buildbots will report problems,
but then you have to debug them by committing changes, triggering a
build, and observing
By the way, it seems that this python-checkins mailing list did not
archive the recent commits:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2008-October/date.html#end
I miss them... Can someone fix it?
Which ones are you missing specifically?
Regards,
Martin
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, it seems that this python-checkins mailing list did not
archive the recent commits:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2008-October/date.html#end
I miss them... Can someone fix it?
Which ones
2008/10/30 Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Question - is there anything Roundup can do to help triage? Extra
status or keyword values (has patch,
There is patch keyword already, and a public query Patches
(as well as My Patches)
Sorry, I checked the keywords but missed it.
ready to go,
I haven't seen any of the ones today.
OK, I've respooled them.
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Tarek Ziadé [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about having two level of devs ?
+ core developers
+ standard library developers
I was also thinking about two levels of developers, but structured a
little differently. We have the same core developers with
Le Friday 31 October 2008 00:34:32 Paul Moore, vous avez écrit :
Agreed. I was thinking vaguely in terms of a type of voting - rather
than a status or resolution, it might be more like the nosy list - a
list of people who have said they think the patch is OK. The more
people on the list, the
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 17:27, Victor Stinner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Friday 31 October 2008 00:34:32 Paul Moore, vous avez écrit :
Agreed. I was thinking vaguely in terms of a type of voting - rather
than a status or resolution, it might be more like the nosy list - a
list of people who
42 matches
Mail list logo
