[python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Jesus Cea]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I have found a few flaws in 2.6 documentation. I was going to correct
them when I found they are already solved in trunk in r69846, done by
mark.dickinson in february.

Is there any reason for that commit not to be merged to 2.6 branch?. Am
I missing anything?.

- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/  _/_/_/_/_/_/
j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/
jabber / xmpp:j...@jabber.org _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/_/
.  _/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/  _/_/
"Things are not so easy"  _/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/
"My name is Dump, Core Dump"   _/_/_/_/_/_/  _/_/  _/_/
"El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBSkzGsJlgi5GaxT1NAQIJBwP8C5nnSw5wKjlM/2y5UtS96kbvGipC6EFV
9cbxF3s6vJOGbDqKdgm6VMz82DNIsIw7YhUDw2ACB9Q/HGAwno5u56/eVXCfA53N
uDGYyQ76Ebty2HqbEdcve3n5UH6/2O5Yd3koFpaBm0/UrA/DayFSNAKyqGL3pNZq
To6p6r/0ots=
=jMbT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Benjamin Peterson]

2009/7/2 Jesus Cea :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I have found a few flaws in 2.6 documentation. I was going to correct
> them when I found they are already solved in trunk in r69846, done by
> mark.dickinson in february.
>
> Is there any reason for that commit not to be merged to 2.6 branch?. Am
> I missing anything?.

People usually don't merge documentation changes because it's more
trouble than it's worth. You can merge that one, though.



-- 
Regards,
Benjamin
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Anthony Baxter]

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 maintenance branch, more power to them.



On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:

> 2009/7/2 Jesus Cea :
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > I have found a few flaws in 2.6 documentation. I was going to correct
> > them when I found they are already solved in trunk in r69846, done by
> > mark.dickinson in february.
> >
> > Is there any reason for that commit not to be merged to 2.6 branch?. Am
> > I missing anything?.
>
> People usually don't merge documentation changes because it's more
> trouble than it's worth. You can merge that one, though.
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Benjamin
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[R. David Murray]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 00:58, Anthony Baxter wrote:

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 maintenance branch, more power to them.


What I do is accumulate a list of doc fixes I've made, and when the
list gets to some undefined size or age, I merge them all in one
svnmerge batch.  I think Georg does something similar.

--David
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Jesus Cea]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Anthony Baxter wrote:
> Speaking as a past release manager, the reason that things like that
> didn't get merged is because... drumroll... no-one merged them.

Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were
merges are painless :-).

> 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 maintenance branch, more power to them.

I already have the checkouts for the maintained branches. I will try to
merge that patch, although it is old and will probably generate a ton of
conflicts. Let's see...

- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/  _/_/_/_/_/_/
j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/
jabber / xmpp:j...@jabber.org _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/_/
.  _/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/  _/_/
"Things are not so easy"  _/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/
"My name is Dump, Core Dump"   _/_/_/_/_/_/  _/_/  _/_/
"El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBSkzO+5lgi5GaxT1NAQLUFwP/QfS/U20tSS1Xd6P9nm3V2OADxOs9aFSK
TEpluTRSZ3o3E8GoXGjx1BBns3rffM7+VSIIvnlzujzTF9r4nUxy26TNjDKBnZ9j
aByQAtJVY2FY3nYYIxZ1SJn1w4HWBtueckZV5fCZmMRpLWEQSwfbVFIq3+6IHwC2
xCVByx9x+yI=
=SvWZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven]

-On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (j...@jcea.es) wrote:
>Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were
>merges are painless :-).

For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges
easier, so that would make your comment moot.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven  / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B
When you do something, you should burn yourself completely, like a good
bonfire, leaving no trace of yourself...
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Benjamin Peterson]

2009/7/2 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven :
> -On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (j...@jcea.es) wrote:
>>Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were
>>merges are painless :-).
>
> For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges
> easier, so that would make your comment moot.

They're about 2^987987979 times faster, though than with svnmerge.py.



-- 
Regards,
Benjamin
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Jesus Cea]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2009/7/2 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven :
>> -On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (j...@jcea.es) wrote:
>>> Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were
>>> merges are painless :-).
>> For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges
>> easier, so that would make your comment moot.
> 
> They're about 2^987987979 times faster, though than with svnmerge.py.

And you don't forget any merge, because you commit to the maintenance
and then merge to the trunk.

- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/  _/_/_/_/_/_/
j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/
jabber / xmpp:j...@jabber.org _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/_/
.  _/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/  _/_/
"Things are not so easy"  _/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/
"My name is Dump, Core Dump"   _/_/_/_/_/_/  _/_/  _/_/
"El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBSkzVBJlgi5GaxT1NAQLXrQP/atOdGpe5bidVWexezSOQAq9Zzkgf8pd6
4lDzQqxvDF8K2TeMNT7s4EXib0OQGLxP/jjtp+Tupb/e0oMu8t9wFNrdhJsatNyR
SCyLlfvk/lr5aAFeFGwwZOkMcudqfhPXbq3CEmz3g0dchnITqEqSN1xv2K6YUZJe
qdIoBOCUt4U=
=OYEB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Anthony Baxter]

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...@jcea.es) wrote:
> >Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were
> >merges are painless :-).
>
> For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges
> easier, so that would make your comment moot.
>
> --
> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven  / asmodai
> イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
> http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B
> When you do something, you should burn yourself completely, like a good
> bonfire, leaving no trace of yourself...
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Brett Cannon]

2009/7/2 Anthony Baxter 

> 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.
>

If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that 3.0
is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another
point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new
syntax or tweak semantics.


>
>
> 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...@jcea.es) wrote:
>> >Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were
>> >merges are painless :-).
>>
>> For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content
>> merges
>> easier, so that would make your comment moot.
>>
>> --
>> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven  / asmodai
>> イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
>> http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B
>> When you do something, you should burn yourself completely, like a good
>> bonfire, leaving no trace of yourself...
>> ___
>> python-committers mailing list
>> python-committers@python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>>
>
>
> ___
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
>
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Barry Warsaw]

On Jul 2, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit  
that 3.0
is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with  
another
point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce  
any new

syntax or tweak semantics.


Right.  There have been rumblings of wanting a 3.0.2, and I could do  
it if the clamor were loud enough, but I still think we don't need one.


-Barry



PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Anthony Baxter]

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 summit that
>> 3.0
>> is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another
>> point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any
>> new
>> syntax or tweak semantics.
>>
>
> Right.  There have been rumblings of wanting a 3.0.2, and I could do it if
> the clamor were loud enough, but I still think we don't need one.
>
> -Barry
>
>
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[R. David Murray]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote:

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.


No, we have 2.7, 2.6, 3.2, and 3.1.

Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk
is...painful.  Because of the (lack of) speed.

--David
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Barry Warsaw]

On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:

I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2  
release. We

can call it the "homage to 1.6" release.


We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that reference!)





too-much-monty-python-as-a-child-ly y'rs,
-Barry



PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw  wrote:

> On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
>
>  I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2 release. We
>> can call it the "homage to 1.6" release.
>>
>
> We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that reference!)
>
>  
>>
>
> too-much-monty-python-as-a-child-ly y'rs


Considering Georg just discovered Fawlty Towers I think we might need to
have required British humour training for all core committers.

-Brett
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[A.M. Kuchling]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:34:38PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk
> is...painful.  Because of the (lack of) speed.

Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority list,
then?

--amk
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[R. David Murray]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 at 11:43, Brett Cannon wrote:

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw  wrote:


On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:

 I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2 release. We

can call it the "homage to 1.6" release.



We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that reference!)

 




too-much-monty-python-as-a-child-ly y'rs



Considering Georg just discovered Fawlty Towers I think we might need to
have required British humour training for all core committers.


I can see it now...the TV and movie track at PyCon 2010,
with attendance mandatory for anyone wanting to participate
in the Core sprint...

--David
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:46, A.M. Kuchling  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:34:38PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> > Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk
> > is...painful.  Because of the (lack of) speed.
>
> Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority list,
> then?


I thought it was already high on the priority list and that Dirkjan was
actively working on the transition.

-Brett
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[David Goodger]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 14:56, R. David Murray wrote:
> I can see it now...the TV and movie track at PyCon 2010,
> with attendance mandatory for anyone wanting to participate
> in the Core sprint...

We actually had a room or two for evening videos at a PyCon (both?) in
Dallas. Somebody brought the boxed set of the Flying Circus show and
had it running. I fondly recall processing email while chuckling...

It wasn't very well attended though.

-- 
David Goodger 
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Martin v. Löwis]

>> Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk
>> is...painful.  Because of the (lack of) speed.
> 
> Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority list,
> then?

That's one of the typical "we" questions... Currently, there is a single
person working on that transition, so progress is naturally slow.

Regards,
Martin
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Martin v. Löwis]

> 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. 
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that
> 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with
> another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't
> introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.

Unfortunately, that decision was never communicated to the committers,
or, for that matter, to people present at the language summit :-(

So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2
release.

Regards,
Martin
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:01, "Martin v. Löwis"  wrote:

> > 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.
> >
> >
> > If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that
> > 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with
> > another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't
> > introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
>
> Unfortunately, that decision was never communicated to the committers,
> or, for that matter, to people present at the language summit :-(
>

Sorry about that.


>
> So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2
> release.


If Barry is up for it I am not against it, but if we do go with it I think
it should be a quickie release and then retire 3.0.x completely.

-Brett
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Barry Warsaw]

On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

If Barry is up for it I am not against it, but if we do go with it I  
think it should be a quickie release and then retire 3.0.x completely.


It's not difficult to actually cut the release.  What is a pain is  
managing all the bugs leading up to it.  If we announce that we're  
going to do a 3.0.2, people who thought 3.0 was dead may ask for their  
favorite bug fix to be backported, etc.


If we're going to do one, then we'll need to schedule it and give  
people a chance to actually commit to it for a few weeks.  We may even  
need to do release candidates.


TBH, I'm not sure there's enough interest in doing it.  We're not  
recommending people actually /use/ 3.0, and I know for one data point  
that Ubuntu doesn't care.


-Barry



PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Martin v. Löwis]

> TBH, I'm not sure there's enough interest in doing it.

Then announce, to the widest public possible, that there will not
be a 3.0.2 release ever. It's just that the status quo is unsatisfying.

Regards,
Martin
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Mark Dickinson]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> [Brett]
>> If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that
>> 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with
>> another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't
>> introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
>
> Unfortunately, that decision was never communicated to the committers,
> or, for that matter, to people present at the language summit :-(
>
> So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2
> release.

Speaking as one of the people who occasionally remembers to backport
to 3.0 (though clearly I failed with r69846), it wouldn't bother me at all
if there were no 3.0.2.  I can't speak for any of the other backporters, of
course.

I'm not really sure who 3.0.2 would be useful for.

Mark
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Nick Coghlan]

Mark Dickinson wrote:
> Speaking as one of the people who occasionally remembers to backport
> to 3.0 (though clearly I failed with r69846), it wouldn't bother me at all
> if there were no 3.0.2.  I can't speak for any of the other backporters, of
> course.
> 
> I'm not really sure who 3.0.2 would be useful for.

I agree with what Mark has said above (it also means I can just svn
switch my 3.0 checkout to 3.1 rather than adding a 5th local working copy).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncogh...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

[Raymond Hettinger]

> So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2 
> release.

I'm one of those people who have backported fixes to 3.0, but I do not want
a 3.0.2 to go out now thet 3.1 has been released.  The latest version should
not get upstaged.  Essentially, 3.1 is what 3.0.x should have been.  The 3.0.x 
series 
is defective and needs to die-off and be forgotten.

So, not only would 3.0.2 be a waste of Barry's time, it would be a step 
backwards.
A while ago, Barry said that 3.0.2 would not happen, so at that point several of
us stopped backporting fixes.  So, 3.0.2 still has known bugs and I think it 
would 
be a mistake to release it.


Raymond

___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 15:21, Raymond Hettinger  wrote:

>
> > So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2
> release.
>
> I'm one of those people who have backported fixes to 3.0, but I do not want
> a 3.0.2 to go out now thet 3.1 has been released.  The latest version
> should
> not get upstaged.  Essentially, 3.1 is what 3.0.x should have been.  The
> 3.0.x series
> is defective and needs to die-off and be forgotten.
>
> So, not only would 3.0.2 be a waste of Barry's time, it would be a step
> backwards.
> A while ago, Barry said that 3.0.2 would not happen, so at that point
> several of
> us stopped backporting fixes.  So, 3.0.2 still has known bugs and I think
> it would
> be a mistake to release it.
>

Sounds like general consensus that 3.0.2 isn't worth it. Is an announcement
on c.l.p.a and something on www.python.org enough to get the word out that
3.0.2 is not going to happen and 3.0 users should migrate to 3.1?

-Brett
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

[Barry Warsaw]

On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

Sounds like general consensus that 3.0.2 isn't worth it. Is an  
announcement on c.l.p.a and something on www.python.org enough to  
get the word out that 3.0.2 is not going to happen and 3.0 users  
should migrate to 3.1?


I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download  
pages.


There will be no 3.0.2.
-Barry



PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

[R. David Murray]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 at 18:26, Barry Warsaw wrote:

On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

Sounds like general consensus that 3.0.2 isn't worth it. Is an announcement 
on c.l.p.a and something on www.python.org enough to get the word out that 
3.0.2 is not going to happen and 3.0 users should migrate to 3.1?


I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download pages.

There will be no 3.0.2.


+1

(I'm one of the other people who was backporting things until recently.)

--David
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

[Christian Heimes]

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download pages.
> 
> There will be no 3.0.2.

+1 for your decision.

Are there any known incompatibilities that could break a Python 3.0
script on 3.1?
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

[Benjamin Peterson]

2009/7/2 Christian Heimes :
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download pages.
>>
>> There will be no 3.0.2.
>
> +1 for your decision.
>
> Are there any known incompatibilities that could break a Python 3.0
> script on 3.1?

This is the short list:
http://docs.python.org/dev/py3k/whatsnew/3.1.html#porting-to-python-3-1

I'm sure there's a variety of py3k transition problem fixes that break
strict compatibility, though.



-- 
Regards,
Benjamin
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

[Steve Holden]

Brett Cannon wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw  > wrote:
> 
> On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> 
> I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2
> release. We
> can call it the "homage to 1.6" release.
> 
> 
> We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that reference!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too-much-monty-python-as-a-child-ly y'rs
> 
> 
> Considering Georg just discovered Fawlty Towers I think we might need to
> have required British humour training for all core committers.
> 
It was kind of thrust in our faces at the EuroPython meeting this week.
At dinner the table I was sitting on was entitled "Ministry of Silly
Walks". If ever there's a Python certification it should definitely
involve knowing *something* about that series ;-)

regards
 Steve
-- 
Steve Holden   +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
Watch PyCon on video now!  http://pycon.blip.tv/

___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

[Steve Holden]

Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> 
>> So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2
> release.
> 
> I'm one of those people who have backported fixes to 3.0, but I do not want
> a 3.0.2 to go out now thet 3.1 has been released.  The latest version should
> not get upstaged.  Essentially, 3.1 is what 3.0.x should have been.  The
> 3.0.x series
> is defective and needs to die-off and be forgotten.
>  
> So, not only would 3.0.2 be a waste of Barry's time, it would be a step
> backwards.
> A while ago, Barry said that 3.0.2 would not happen, so at that point
> several of
> us stopped backporting fixes.  So, 3.0.2 still has known bugs and I
> think it would
> be a mistake to release it.
>  
>  

Suggested text for press release:

"""
3.0 is dead. It is pushing up the daisies. It has ceased to be. It is no
more. It has joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-release.
"""

regards
 Steve
-- 
Steve Holden   +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
Watch PyCon on video now!  http://pycon.blip.tv/

___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers