Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does this sound to the non-AST-branch developers who have to
suffer the inevitable post-merge instability? I think it's now or
never -- waiting longer isn't going to make this thing easier (not
with several more language changes approved:
On 10/6/05, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:34 PM 10/6/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
How does this sound to the non-AST-branch developers who have to
suffer the inevitable post-merge instability? I think it's now or
never -- waiting longer isn't going to make this thing
Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we kill the branch for now, then anyone that wants to bring up the idea
again can write a PEP first
I still have some (very) small hope that it can be finished. If we
don't get it done soon then I fear that it will never happen. I had
hoped that a SoC
On 10/6/05, Neil Schemenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we kill the branch for now, then anyone that wants to bring up the idea
again can write a PEP first
I still have some (very) small hope that it can be finished. If we
don't get it done soon then
On 10/6/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/6/05, Neil Schemenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we kill the branch for now, then anyone that wants to bring up the idea
again can write a PEP first
I still have some (very) small hope
Unless I'm missing something, we would need to merge HEAD to the AST
branch once more to pick up the changes in MAIN since the last merge,
and then make sure everything in the AST branch is passing the test
suite. Otherwise we risk having MAIN broken for awhile following a
merge.
IMO,
[Kurt]
Unless I'm missing something, we would need to merge HEAD to the AST
branch once more to pick up the changes in MAIN since the last merge,
and then make sure everything in the AST branch is passing the test
suite. Otherwise we risk having MAIN broken for awhile following a
merge.
At 07:34 PM 10/6/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
How does this sound to the non-AST-branch developers who have to
suffer the inevitable post-merge instability? I think it's now or
never -- waiting longer isn't going to make this thing easier (not
with several more language changes approved:
On 10/6/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Kurt]
Unless I'm missing something, we would need to merge HEAD to the AST
branch once more to pick up the changes in MAIN since the last merge,
and then make sure everything in the AST branch is passing the test
suite. Otherwise
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I happen to agree with Kurt that we should first merge the head into
the branch; then the AST team can work on making sure the entire
test suite passes; then they can merge back into the head.
I can be available to do this again. It would involve
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 10/4/05, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was planning on looking at your patch too, but I was waiting for an answer
from Guido about the fate of the ast-branch for Python 2.5. Given that we have
patches for PEP 342 and PEP 343 against the trunk, but ast-branch
On 10/5/05, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the question is: What do we want to do with ast-branch? Finish
bringing it up to Python 2.4 equivalence, make it the HEAD, and only then
implement the approved PEP's (308, 342, 343) that affect the compiler? Or
implement the approved
To answer Nick's email here, I didn't respond to that initial email
because it seemed specifically directed at Guido and not me.
On 10/5/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/5/05, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the question is: What do we want to do with
13 matches
Mail list logo
