As someone who's not been involved for some time now, but was release
manager for a three or four years (2.3.1 through to 2.5.1), trying to have
the release manager also be a decider of potentially controversial things
doesn't seem scalable.
Getting a release out is a heck of a lot of work, both t
While I have not been involved in the release process for like 15 years or
more, I would like to point out that breaking changes mean the distros are
less likely to ship them, and be less likely to trust updates.
Trying to get RH &c to stop shipping 1.5.2 was a huge effort.
Always, any time when
I wonder if putting this into a PEP might be a little heavyweight in terms
of making adjustments to the platform triples and their priorities? I
perhaps think something that's a look aside table with a defined policy of
how to move various triples up and down might work better?
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022
darn. I was hoping to get a 2.5.3 rc and final out soon. Can anyone
else build the binaries?
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It sounds like Wednesday August 13th will not be feasible, so we'll do
>> beta 3 on Wednesday August 20th. I've updated
ly surprised if more nasty lurking bugs remain in
the C code. The google security review found a bunch, apple found
some, but there's really quite a lot of code there...
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:28 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony Baxter wrote:
What would this professionalisation get us that we don't have now? As
far as I can see, the biggest hole at the moment (as always) is with
people to trawl the tracker and triage bug reports and patches.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou w
If there's a screwup, and you need to recut the branch, you want to be
sure someone else hasn't been helpful and added something else to the
repo.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Jesus Cea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> IIUC
ix.
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If there's a screwup, and you need to recut the branch, you want to be
>> sure someone else hasn't been helpful and added something else to the
>> repo.
>>
>>
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Oct 1, 2008, at 9:47 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
>
>> Sure, but that's more fiddly. From experience, when you're cutting
>> releases, making things as simple as possible is a good thing.
>
> Especially when a lot of the process is sc
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:08 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're absolutely right and that sounds good. I will update the PEP
>> accordingly. Martin, Ronald, Sean, what timezones are you in? I am
>> US/Eastern.
>
> I'm in CET (Central European), that GMT+2 in DST, and GMT+1
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose that the release of 3.0rc2 is deferred until all release
> blockers have been resolved (either by actually fixing them, or by
> carefully considering that they shouldn't actually block the release).
>
> What el
IMHO if there's still big scary stuff out there, calling this a
release candidate does us no good PR-wise, and does no good for our
users. 3.0 is going to be scary enough for them as it is - cutting a
release candidate that we either know is broken, or else has
significant changes, is a very bad id
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Nicholas Bastin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > You always create a branch for the release (subversion doesn't make any
>> > distinction between a tag and a branch anyhow, so you
Don't be silly, you don't really think the PSU would go after someone is a
release manag
On Dec 4, 2008 4:56 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le mercredi 03 décembre
2008 à 12:27 -0500, Ba...
I hope not, but there's a black van
Speaking as a past release manager, the reason that things like that didn't
get merged is because... drumroll... no-one merged them.
It's another tree to checkout and patch. Personally, I was always of the
belief that if someone wanted to fix docs (or comments, or other things like
that) in a maint
The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much as the
discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we have 2.6.x,
3.0.x and 3.1.x.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <
asmo...@in-nomine.org> wrote:
> -On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (j..
I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2 release. We
can call it the "homage to 1.6" release.
Anthony
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language sum
I have in the past done a microrelease without a release candidate. It
didn't go well.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I'm just getting back from the nice trip to the Olympic Peninsula. I
> should be able to do a release sometime next week. In the meanti
Its also about preventing the brown paper bag releases caused by stupid
screwups.
On Aug 7, 2009 8:08 PM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
Georg Brandl wrote: > OK, maybe alphas and betas were a bit too skeptical;
but there needs to be > *...
As has been noted, release candidate -> maintenance release is t
Often the NEWS entry ends up being rewritten from the commit message to be
more user-focussed description of the change...
On Sep 14, 2009 6:33 PM, "Georg Brandl" wrote:
Brett Cannon schrieb:
>> brainstorm: >> >> It'd be nicer if we could generate the file from
another source, >> perhaps ke...
I strongly urge another release candidate. But then, I am not doing the
work, so take that advice for what it is...
On Oct 14, 2009 10:18 AM, "Barry Warsaw" wrote:
On Oct 13, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> I always thought that
the idea of a release ...
No, but let's do one anyway!
Yep. People tend to stop being so active when they join Google (including
me) :-(
There's a fair number of current or ex Python dev folks at Google. Guido,
Jeremy H, Alex M, Neal N, Thomas W off the top of my head, I am certain
there's a bunch more...
On Oct 17, 2012 4:12 AM, "Gregory P. Smith" w
Fair enough - I did say "tend". :)
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Anthony Baxter
> wrote:
>>
>> Yep. People tend to stop being so active when they join Google (including
>> me) :-(
>
> My
Maybe time it so when we *would* have released a 2.8 (18 months or so after
2.7) is when it goes into critical/security fixes only?
On Jun 22, 2013 11:50 PM, "Eli Bendersky" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Eli Bendersky wrot
http://www.voodoochilli.net/artwork/illustration/chickens-of-war/
On Aug 4, 2013 4:34 PM, "Larry Hastings" wrote:
>
>
> All the release engineering work for 3.4.0a1 has been merged. Cry havoc,
> and let slip the checkins of war!
>
>
> */arry*
>
> ___
>
I approve of this. I wonder if we can't radically simplify it?
Don't be awful. If someone says 'hey um that makes me uncomfortable'
perhaps reconsider what you said. Perhaps say "oh oops, sorry". Don't be an
awful person.
Codes of conduct are awesome, but it depresses me that we need to write
dow
26 matches
Mail list logo
