Guido van Rossum wrote:
On the hosting issue, I'm still neutral -- I expect we'll be able to
support the current developer crowd easily on svn.python.org, but if
we ever find ther are resource problems (either people or bandwidth
etc.) I just received a recommendation for wush.net which
I'm ready to accept te general idea of moving to subversion and away
from SourceForge.
On the hosting issue, I'm still neutral -- I expect we'll be able to
support the current developer crowd easily on svn.python.org, but if
we ever find ther are resource problems (either people or bandwidth
On Aug 20, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm ready to accept te general idea of moving to subversion and away
from SourceForge.
On the hosting issue, I'm still neutral -- I expect we'll be able to
support the current developer crowd easily on svn.python.org, but if
we ever find
Tim Peters wrote:
It would be best if svn:eol-style were set to native during initial
conversion from CVS, on all files not marked binary in CVS.
Ok, I'll add that to the PEP. Not sure how to implement it, yet...
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev
Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Martin v. Löwis]
I have placed a new version of the PEP on
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0347.html
...
+1 from me. But, I don't think my vote should count much, and (sorry)
Guido's even less: what do the people who frequently check in want?
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 21:42, Michael Hudson wrote:
I want svn, I think. I'm open to more sophisticated approaches but am
not sure that any of them are really mature enough yet. Probably will
be soon, but not soon enough to void the effort of moving to svn
(IMHO).
I'm not really a
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 07:42, Michael Hudson wrote:
The third set of people who count are pydotorg admins. I'm not really
one of those either at the moment. While SF's CVS setup has it's
problems (occasional outages; it's only CVS) it's hard to beat what it
costs us in sysadmin time: zero.
Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 07:42, Michael Hudson wrote:
The third set of people who count are pydotorg admins. I'm not really
one of those either at the moment. While SF's CVS setup has it's
problems (occasional outages; it's only CVS) it's hard to beat
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 10:08:26PM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 21:42, Michael Hudson wrote:
I want svn, I think. I'm open to more sophisticated approaches but am
not sure that any of them are really mature enough yet. Probably will
be soon, but not soon enough
On Aug 16, 2005, at 2:52 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
It would be best if svn:eol-style were set to native during initial
conversion from CVS, on all files not marked binary in CVS.
Ok, I'll add that to the PEP. Not sure how to implement it, yet...
cvs2svn does that by
James Y Knight wrote:
cvs2svn does that by default (now).
Ah, ok.
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Michael Hudson wrote:
I suppose another question is: when? Between 2.4.2 and 2.5a1 seems
like a good opportunity. I guess the biggest job is collection of
keys and associated admin?
I would agree. However, there still is the debate of hosting the
repository elsehwere. Some people (Anthony,
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:31:20PM +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I would agree. However, there still is the debate of hosting the
repository elsehwere. Some people (Anthony, Guido, Tim) would prefer
to pay for it, instead of hosting it on svn.python.org.
Another option would be to pay someone
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 15:18, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
Another option would be to pay someone to maintain the SVN setup on
python.org. Unfortunately, I guess that would require someone else
to first create a detailed description of the maintenance work
required and to process bids.
Again,
[Michael Hudson]
I suppose another question is: when? Between 2.4.2 and 2.5a1 seems
like a good opportunity. I guess the biggest job is collection of
keys and associated admin?
[Martin v. Löwis]
I would agree. However, there still is the debate of hosting the
repository elsehwere. Some
[Tim]
+1 from me. But, I don't think my vote should count much, and (sorry)
Guido's even less: what do the people who frequently check in want?
That means people like you (Martin), Michael, Raymond, Walter, Fred.
... plus the release manager(s).
+1 from me. CVS is meeting my needs but I
Neil Schemenauer wrote:
Another option would be to pay someone to maintain the SVN setup on
python.org. Unfortunately, I guess that would require someone else
to first create a detailed description of the maintenance work
required and to process bids.
I think this would be difficult. I could
[Martin v. Löwis]
Ah, ok. Of course, Barry can only speak about the current availability
of volunteers, which is quite good (especially since amk took over
coordinating them), nobody can predict the future (the time machine
apparently only works one-way). So I guess the concern stays, and,
[Raymond Hettinger]
+1 from me. CVS is meeting my needs but I would definitely benefit from
fast diffs and atomic commits. My experiences with SVN to-date have all
been positive and it was easy to learn.
Good! That was my experience too, BTW -- SVN was a genuine
improvement over CVS, and I
Tim Peters wrote:
[Martin v. Löwis]
I have placed a new version of the PEP on
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0347.html
...
+1 from me. But, I don't think my vote should count much, and (sorry)
Guido's even less: what do the people who frequently check in want?
That means people like
Tim Peters wrote:
[Martin v. Löwis]
I would agree. However, there still is the debate of hosting the
repository elsehwere. Some people (Anthony, Guido, Tim) would prefer
to pay for it, instead of hosting it on svn.python.org.
Not this Tim.
Not this one either. I haven't actually used any
Nor this Guido, FWIW (I think we shouldn't rule it out as an option,
but I don't have any preferences).
On 8/16/05, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
[Martin v. Löwis]
I would agree. However, there still is the debate of hosting the
repository elsehwere.
[Martin v. Löwis]
I have placed a new version of the PEP on
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0347.html
...
+1 from me. But, I don't think my vote should count much, and (sorry)
Guido's even less: what do the people who frequently check in want?
That means people like you (Martin), Michael,
Brett Cannon wrote:
What is going in under python/ ? If it is what is currently
/dist/src/, then great and the renaming of the repository works.
Just have a look yourself :-) Yes, this is dist/src.
But if that is what src/ is going to be used for
This is nondist/src. Perhaps I should just
On 8/7/05, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
What is going in under python/ ? If it is what is currently
/dist/src/, then great and the renaming of the repository works.
Just have a look yourself :-) Yes, this is dist/src.
Ah, OK. I didn't drill far enough
I have placed a new version of the PEP on
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0347.html
Changes to the previous version include:
- add more rationale for using svn (atomic changesets,
fast tags and branches)
- changed conversion procedure to a single repository, with
some reorganization. See
On 8/7/05, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have placed a new version of the PEP on
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0347.html
Changes to the previous version include:
- add more rationale for using svn (atomic changesets,
fast tags and branches)
- changed conversion
27 matches
Mail list logo
