thanks for the reply hastings ive been working on a loopback interface its done
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:00 AM, <python-dev-requ...@python.org> wrote: > Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to > python-dev@python.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > python-dev-requ...@python.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > python-dev-ow...@python.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Python-Dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?) (mar...@v.loewis.de) > 2. Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, > size, fill=None)) (anatoly techtonik) > 3. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] > itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Mark Lawrence) > 4. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] > itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Stefan Behnel) > 5. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] > itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Paul Boddie) > 6. EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled. (Larry Hastings) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:27:02 +0200 > From: mar...@v.loewis.de > To: python-dev@python.org > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?) > Message-ID: > <20120705202702.horde.yh-rbqgzi1vp9dx2h7nj...@webmail.df.eu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes > > >> You won't get any changes in to CPython by creating pull requests. We > >> use http://bugs.python.org/ for that, sorry. > > > > Question -- is there a reason to abide by this rule for docs? That is, > if we > > could get a sympathetic core dev to look at pull requests for docs as > part of > > a streamlined process, would it cause problems? > > How do you communicate a "pull request"? On bitbucket, there is a > "pull request" > UI resulting in a tracker item being generated (and an email being sent), > but > hg.python.org doesn't have a notion of pull requests. Of course, you could > use any communication means (email, telephone call, carrier pigeon) to > request > a pull from a "sympathetic core dev". > > > (What I'm really asking is whether or the bugs.python.org process is > > considered critical for potentially minor doc changes and additions.) > > The sympathetic core dev is mostly free to bypass any submission process > initially; commits that bypass established procedures will likely be > questioned > only after the fact. > > In the specific case, I'd be worried to verify that the submitter has > provided > a contributor form. That's easy to do in the bug tracker, but difficult to > do > in an offline pull request. Of course, for a really minor doc change > (e.g. typo > fixes), no contrib form is necessary. > > Regards, > Martin > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:41:29 +0300 > From: anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> > To: Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> > Cc: python-id...@python.org, python-dev@python.org > Subject: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] > itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) > Message-ID: > <CAPkN8x+A-OYWNLNKDH= > 6gnqn+o_tb3lmnimhys9zkymwr1g...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > > anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36: > >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: > >>> From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add > >>> grouper: > >>> > >>> "This has been rejected before. > >> > >> I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that > >> these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that > >> as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting. > > > > The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell > > them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions > > and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know > > what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark > > "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of > > arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to the > > same result as it did before, often several times before. > > Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others > time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there > is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting > gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" > for others to admire. > > No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why > don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If > people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant > and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody > Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows > why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also > help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some > major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more > interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it > easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed > before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading > old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make > users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An > "organic" way to keep traffic low. > > Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for > developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as > Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to > munch-munch on the sequence data). > > Wheew. :-F > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:55:09 +0100 > From: Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> > To: python-dev@python.org > Cc: python-id...@python.org > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] > itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) > Message-ID: <jt4re5$3gs$1...@dough.gmane.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 05/07/2012 20:41, anatoly techtonik wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> > wrote: > >> anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36: > >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: > >>>> From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , > add > >>>> grouper: > >>>> > >>>> "This has been rejected before. > >>> > >>> I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that > >>> these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that > >>> as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting. > >> > >> The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even > spell > >> them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions > >> and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know > >> what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark > >> "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of > >> arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to > the > >> same result as it did before, often several times before. > > > > Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others > > time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there > > is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting > > gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" > > for others to admire. > > > > No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why > > don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If > > people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant > > and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody > > Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows > > why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also > > help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some > > major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more > > interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it > > easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed > > before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading > > old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make > > users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An > > "organic" way to keep traffic low. > > > > Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for > > developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as > > Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to > > munch-munch on the sequence data). > > > > Wheew. :-F > > > > Can I safely assume that you are volunteering to do the work required? > > -- > Cheers. > > Mark Lawrence. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:58:52 +0200 > From: Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> > To: python-dev@python.org > Cc: python-id...@python.org > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] > itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) > Message-ID: <jt4rlt$45k$1...@dough.gmane.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41: > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: > >> anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36: > >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: > >>>> From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , > add > >>>> grouper: > >>>> > >>>> "This has been rejected before. > >>> > >>> I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that > >>> these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that > >>> as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting. > >> > >> The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even > spell > >> them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions > >> and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know > >> what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark > >> "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of > >> arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to > the > >> same result as it did before, often several times before. > > > > Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others > > time? > > Yes, that is exactly the question. > > It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has pointed > out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look it > up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself, > or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on others > to do it for you? > > Stefan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:11:46 +0200 > From: Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> > To: python-dev@python.org > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] > itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) > Message-ID: <201207052311.46867.p...@boddie.org.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Stefan Behnel wrote: > > anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41: > > > > > > Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others > > > time? > > > > Yes, that is exactly the question. > > > > It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has pointed > > out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look > it > > up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself, > > or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on > others > > to do it for you? > > To be fair, Anatoly has done quite a bit of maintenance on some of the Wiki > content around various aspects of the project, so it's not as if he's > demanding anything out of the ordinary or asking for others to do things > that > he isn't already doing in some sense. My experience is that there usually > needs to be some willingness on the other end of the transaction, and if it > takes repetition to encourage it amongst those who don't see the current > situation as a problem for them, then so be it. > > Of course, this kind of documentation activity, where one gathers together > historical decisions and the consensus from long-forgotten discussions, is > pretty thankless work. I occasionally regard it as worthwhile if only to > bring up something someone said as an inconvenient interruption in any > current discussion, but that's a pretty minimal reward for all the effort > unless one has such work as part of one's daily routine. > > Paul > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:47:30 +0200 > From: Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> > To: python-dev@python.org, python-committ...@python.org > Subject: [Python-Dev] EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled. > Message-ID: <4ff68a02.8000...@hastings.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > > > I only got one more RSVP and zero topics for the docket. So let's > sprint instead. > > See you at the PyCon 2013 Language Summit, > > > //arry/ > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120706/f13295aa/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > > > End of Python-Dev Digest, Vol 108, Issue 7 > ****************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
