-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 25, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I agree. This seriously feels like new, potentially high risk code
to be adding this late in the game. The BDFL can always override,
but unless someone is really
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 25, 2008, at 2:15 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Guido's request was just for updating the Unicode database with
the data from 5.1 - without adding new support for properties or
changing the interfaces.
See this page for a list of changes to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 25, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
You don't mean the experts claimed they weren't important, right?
Unimportant changes definitely don't need to go in now wink.
Well, at least Guido managed to figure out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 26, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Thanks to Neil Schemenauer, we now have some Mercurial mirrors
hosted at
http://code.python.org/hg/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 26, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Brett Cannon brett at python.org writes:
But can we push branches up to our personal directories on
code.python.org like we can with bzr?
If you have an ssh access to code.python.org, it should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 2, 2008, at 8:09 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I suppose this is due to Martin building the installers and him not
be available at the moment.
He should be back today.
Since Python on Windows will likely only get very few beta testers
without
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 2, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 2, 2008, at 8:09 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I suppose this is due
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 3, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
and I know Brett agrees, so that's it. On IRC, I've just asked
Benjamin
to do the honors for 3.0 and Brett will add the deprecations for 2.6.
I just committed the fix for bsddb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight. There are too many open release
blockers that I don't want to defer, and I'd like the buildbots to
churn through the bsddb removal on all platforms. Let me first thank
Benjamin, Brett, Mark and Antoine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:14 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Barry]
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight.
Can I go ahead with some bug fixes and doc improvements
or should I wait until after Friday?
Doc fixes are fine. Please have bug fix patches
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry In addition, Mark reported in IRC that there are some
regressions
Barry in the logging module.
Vinay apparently checked in some changes to the logging module with no
review. In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:31 AM, Facundo Batista wrote:
(I'll be hanging around in #python-dev today and tomorrow, btw, ping
me if I can help you)
Me too, though I'm a bit busy at work. Ping my nick 'barry' if you
need any RM-level decision.
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 7, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight. There are too many open
release blockers that I don't want to defer, and I'd like the
buildbots to churn through the bsddb removal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 7, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
(I have a few minor ET fixes, and possibly a Unicode 5.1 patch,
but have had absolutely no time to spend on that. is the window
still open?)
There are 8 open release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:37 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 12:02:06PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
There are 8 open release blockers, a few of which have patches that
need
review. So I think we are still not ready to release rc1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st
goal. We have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred
blockers. We do not have a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have
high hopes for rectifying all of these problems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
It's also a bug that was introduced by the late API changes made to
WarningsRecorder in r66135 (when WarningsRecorder was moved from
test.test_support to warnings to make it officially supported for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I
don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do
care about it having 2.6.
I've talked with my contact at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Even if I can't contribute very much at the moment, I'm still +1 to
that.
I doubt Python would get nice publicity if we released a 3.0 but had
to
tell everyone, but don't really use it yet, it may
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We had a lot of discussion recently about changing the release
schedule and splitting Python 2.6 and 3.0. There was general
consensus that this was a good idea, in order to hit our October 1
deadline for Python 2.6 final at least.
There is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 12, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We had a lot of discussion recently about changing the release
schedule and
splitting Python 2.6 and 3.0
://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSMsXV3EjvBPtnXfVAQJFsgP9GxZYQocbDTd0Z/0yEjpHfZ/FTd8y83jV
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 17, 2008, at 5:59 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community,
I am
happy to announce the first release candidate for Python 2.6.
In http://www.python.org/download/releases
/download/releases/2.6/
and the Python 3.0 web site:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
See PEP 361 for release schedule details:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin points out that in the past, as part of the release process,
we've built separate downloadable documentation.
Do we still want to do that for Python 2.6 and 3.0, and if so, how do
we go about doing that? I have this feeling that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 21, 2008, at 6:03 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
Martin points out that in the past, as part of the release process,
we've built separate downloadable documentation.
Do we still want to do that for Python 2.6 and 3.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 23, 2008, at 4:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benjamin Peterson wound up writing a test case for the new C atexit
module
on the py3k branch. A similar test, though different in detail,
makes sense
for the Python atexit module on trunk.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:47 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Bob Ippolito wrote:
How much time do I
have left to get this into Python 2.6?
Zero I'm afraid - with rc1 out, it's release blocker bugs only.
Anything
which can be deferred to the 2.6.1 release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is a reminder that Python 2.6 final is schedule for release next
Wednesday, October 1st.
Once again, I've gone through the release blocker issues and knocked
anything that doesn't specifically affect 2.6 to deferred blocker.
This leaves
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been out of town since Friday, but I don't yet see anything in
the 700 billion email messages I'm now catching up on that leads me to
think we need to delay the release. Yay!
I will be on irc later today and will be trolling through the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Jan Mate(jek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan
Mate wrote:
Thanks for your answer. I guess the process is the real problem then.
- From what i could observe, the connection between vendor-sec and
PSRT is
not really working as
/
(Please note that due to quirks in the earth's time zones, the Windows
installers will be available shortly.)
Bugs can be reported in the Python bug tracker:
http://bugs.python.org
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 2, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Haoyu Bai wrote:
Now almost all the pages on docs.python.org can't be accessed. For
example http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html returns 403 forbidden.
Thanks to Georg and Thomas, the docs should all be fixed now.
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 1, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I
am happy to announce the release of Python 2.6 final. This is the
production-ready version of the latest in the Python 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
So now that we've released 2.6 and are working hard on shepherding 3.0
out the door, it's time to worry about the next set of releases. :)
I propose that we dramatically shorten our release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 3, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Wow! I guess release.py is going to get really automated then. =) That
or you are going to manage to con more of us to help out (and even cut
the release ourselves).
release.py is really coming
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My
suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do
we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Barry Warsaw]
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
Given
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My
suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-Nov-2008 3.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Barry Warsaw]
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 rc 2
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 4
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
I've updated PEP 361 and the Google calendar with this schedule,
except that the PEP says that rc3 and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I won't be able to cut another release between the 15th and 5th, so
at least that one should be 2 weeks. If we don't need the
additional rc, then we can release early, which would put us just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 28, 2008, at 04:17 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Yes, that's what it feels like. I hope the pace picks up again and we
can release 3.0 final in early December still. I really don't want to
carry it over to 2009.
Don't worry, it won't. As I
-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.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 31, 2008, at 08:44 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Brett Cannon schrieb:
I just tried to update my 3.0 branch in hg from
http://code.python.org/hg/branches/py3k/ and hg is telling me it's a
404. Anyone else having trouble?
404 here too.
Since
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 31, 2008, at 08:58 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Naw, I think I just f'd up the Apache conf. I'll try to fix that.
And by I'll of course I meant Martin. :)
Thanks Martin!
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 2:46 AM, Ralf Schmitt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have started the DVCS PEP which can be seen at
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7fctr4_40dvjkdg64 . Not much is there
beyond the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 12:58 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
- Sticking with a dvcs implemented in Python makes the best sense,
- especially when you consider the plugin architecture. When we
- selected a new tracker, we didn't make implementation in Python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Ralf Schmitt wrote:
I have used mercurial extensively (before having used git) and I think
git is great.
It gives you much more freedom to work with your source code than
mercurial.
Ralf, can you describe what you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 31, 2008, at 6:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin I have now restored the original URL structure, and moved
the
Martin loggerhead installation to
Martin http://code.python.org/loggerhead/
A couple nits. Leaving off the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
FWIW, I put one up this weekend, and it seems to be intact and OK.
(bzr+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/python/2.6/ or http://code.python.org/python/2.6/
)
Excellent, thanks! This is getting mirrored
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
(No big deal
though). More importantly, there seem to be no images, e.g.:
http://code.python.org/static/images/ico_folder.gif
Looks like it should be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
Exactly the same way 2.5, trunk and 3.0 are, yes.
Beauty, thanks.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
But then again, having one scenario that shows svn's weakness directly
wouldn't hurt. I could see a scenario where I start to fix something
in branch A, realize that a deeper issue needs to be fixed,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
As I said, one of the scenarios already says patches can be whatever
the DVCS supports the best; plain diffs, branches, etc. And the
comments for that scenario will point out any perks from that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
Here's a real-life Python example: http://bugs.python.org/issue2292. I
actually developed that in two separate branches, one depending on the
other: one branch for *just* the changes to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Grepping through Python's sources tells me that we have over 2,000
XXX comments. The thing that irks me about them is that the have a
very slow rate of being resolved, since they usually act more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 4, 2008, at 12:21 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
(2) New repo formats are added frequently, and taking advantage of new
features often requires upgrading your repo format. So-called
lightweight checkouts can be especially annoying as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
Nope, I have no idea how to edit those pages properly, sorry. I'm
sure somebarryone does.
I do. I've been meaning to update those pages to mention loggerhead
too. I'll try to do that today.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 4, 2008, at 1:00 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
This is true. Performance is not everything to everyone. Most Bazaar
users don't care at all; they say things like who cares about a few
seconds in bzr log when it gets the merge right almost
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 4, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Cosmin Stejerean wrote:
I don't agree with completely dismissing performance just because it's
Python. Yes, Python is fast enough most of the time, but when it's
not we
put a lot of effort into making it faster.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
I'll freely admit a (not very) hidden bias here - the slowness of an
initial clone (or going through the download a shared repo, unpack
it, create a branch and update rigmarole) makes this a nasty test
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Without a doubt the bazaar branches need a little more loving
attention
to make them a full working demo, but it's mostly details. The
branches
*do* contain the whole history, and not just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Yes. My understanding, though I haven't tried it yet, is that newer
versions of the bzr-svn plugin do a good job at a full conversion.
Basically, every svn branch becomes a bzr branch and all svn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I disagree. This doesn't scale to Python size. For distributed VC to
work, somebody has to maintain a repo 24x7. Python has to do this for
the trunk; the additional burden for contributed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
You need not feel that way. It's not you---the flexibility of dVCS
means that until the Powers That Be promulgate a Workflow, this will
be ambiguous.
You're absolutely right. Adopting a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 6:35 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
If it isn't already there, suspending work on something to work on
something else would make a very nice scenario to cover, as it is
something even the core devs sometimes have to deal with.
Indeed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 06:23, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
I have emailed some people who have shown allegiance to a specific
DVCS to seeif they are willing to
and downloadable distributions, see the Python
3.0 website:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
See PEP 361 for release schedule details:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 7, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi,
Great job Barry and all contributors who fixed the last bugs ;-)
Thanks!
The document What's new in Python 3.0 in should be updated:
http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 7, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Victor Stinner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Great job Barry and all contributors who fixed the last bugs ;-)
Which reminds me that this release's star
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 8, 2008, at 7:24 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Skip Montanaro and others hackers started to port the
multiprocessing module
to Python 2.4 and 2.5.
http://code.google.com/p/python-multiprocessing/
Is it planned to include it in 2.4.6 and/or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
The backported version of MP is on pypi. Fancy that.
SHHH! Don't tell Guido you've made dups of his time machine keys.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 11, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to
optimize
Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
Just trying to clarify the focus: would you like to see any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 11, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le Wednesday 12 November 2008 00:14:40, vous avez écrit :
There are some very interesting propositions (with patches!) to
optimize
Python int and long types (especially the long integers).
-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
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0 final
and 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would mean that
Python 2.6.1 should be ready on 03-Dec (well, if Python 3.0 is ready
then!).
I'm still planning the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:03 AM, Facundo Batista wrote:
2008/11/17 Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0
final and
2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would mean that
Python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0
final and 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Good catch, this is a bug IMO and we should fix it in 2.6.1 and
3.0rc3.
Ah, a /real/ test of the time machine! Though you can avoid the risk
of a rip in the time-space continuum by trying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Actually, I've wanted to do timed releases, though I think monthly
is unrealistic. Maybe every two months is about the right time
frame. Timed releases are nice because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
From my point of view bi-monthly release are too much. For a ?.?.1
release two months are fine because several issues are found by 3rd
party authors. But after that a release every quarter is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 19, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Martin, I'm keen on figuring out a way to reduce your workload, and
also
to coordinate releases better between us. I /think/ with timed
releases
I can tag a little early and give you something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Let's try this for 3.0rc4 then.
The current release is rc2. Skipping rc3 would confuse people'-)
Yeah, my calendar was wrong, but the PEP (and more importantly...
code!) was right :).
There
:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSTc3pXEjvBPtnXfVAQI69wP/dPHh8IL3GxziEV9QzlveKG+KyZb2X16x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On this page:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
The text This is a proeuction release should probably read This is
a production release. It would give a better first impression :)
Fixed,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:19 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Thanks so much for seeing this one through, Barry and co! Champagne!!!
Now if only I could go on vacation. :)
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 4, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I can't find any docs built for Python 3.0 (not 3.1a0).
The Windows installation has new 3.0 doc dated Dec 3, so it was
built,
just not posted correctly.
That doesn't mean very much. I built
/releases/2.6.1/
Bugs can be reported in the Python bug tracker:
http://bugs.python.org
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 6, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Benjamin Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the release of 3.0, several critical issues have come to our
attention. Namely, the builtin cmp function wasn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 7, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think it is still timely when fixed in January or February.
In fact, releasing it still in December might not be possible,
due to the limited time available.
The cmp()
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 7, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm personally okay with performance fixes in point releases, as
long it doesn't change API or add additional features.
Does your okay include or exclude new internal APIs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 8, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
Where would adding a (undocumented) get_filename() method to
ZipImporter
objects for the benefit of the -m switch fit then?
Why not call it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 15, 2008, at 7:44 PM, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Martin The mailing list python-3...@python.org is now closed. All
Martin further discussion of Python 3.x takes place on
Martin python-...@python.org.
Maybe set up a simple email alias
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'd like to get Python 3.0.1 out before the end of the year. There
are no showstoppers, but I haven't yet looked at the deferred blockers
or the buildbots.
Do you think we can get 3.0.1 out on December 24th? Or should we wait
until after
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'd like to get Python 3.0.1 out before the end of the year. There
are
no showstoppers, but I haven't yet looked at the deferred blockers or
the buildbots.
Do you think we
901 - 1000 of 2552 matches
Mail list logo
