Re: [Python-Dev] r88676 - peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Éric Araujo wrote: >> I really meant superfetatory > > Those damn French people with their foreign words. Remember there's no tone of voice, facial expressions or body language on the internet - smileys are your friend when kidding around :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] r88676 - peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt
> Remember there's no tone of voice, facial expressions or body language > on the internet This linguist approves. > smileys are your friend when kidding around :) All French core developers know I’m French too, but other people on this list could have mistaken me, you’re right. Cheers ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] devinabox: Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:03 AM, brett.cannon wrote: > brett.cannon pushed 3e5a61adb41d to devinabox: > > http://hg.python.org/devinabox/rev/3e5a61adb41d > changeset: 8:3e5a61adb41d > user: Brett Cannon > date: Fri Feb 25 17:35:37 2011 -0800 > summary: > Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way > possible. Is there any particular reason not to stick this in the main repository somewhere, so it is available in all working copies, not just devinabox? Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] devinabox: Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 23:36:38 +1000 Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:03 AM, brett.cannon > wrote: > > brett.cannon pushed 3e5a61adb41d to devinabox: > > > > http://hg.python.org/devinabox/rev/3e5a61adb41d > > changeset: 8:3e5a61adb41d > > user: Brett Cannon > > date: Fri Feb 25 17:35:37 2011 -0800 > > summary: > > Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way > > possible. > > Is there any particular reason not to stick this in the main > repository somewhere, so it is available in all working copies, not > just devinabox? We already have "make test" and "make buildbottest" in addition to "./python -m test". I think another subtly different way of running the tests would be a nuisance. cheers Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] r88676 - peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Éric Araujo wrote: > All French core developers know I’m French too, but other people on this > list could have mistaken me, you’re right. I actually assumed it was something like that, but assumptions are deucedly dangerous things with an annoying habit of biting you when you least expect it :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r88676 - peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt
The PEP (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0385/) says in "Timeline": 2010-03-05: final conversion (tentative) I assume 2011-03-05 is meant here. Eli On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 20:22, antoine.pitrou wrote: > Author: antoine.pitrou > Date: Mon Feb 28 19:22:36 2011 > New Revision: 88676 > > Log: > Update PEP 385 with latest hooks work > > > > Modified: > peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt > > Modified: peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt > > == > --- peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt (original) > +++ peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt Mon Feb 28 19:22:36 2011 > @@ -262,7 +262,22 @@ > on every build slave for the branch in which the changeset occurs. > > The `hooks repository`_ contains ports of these server-side hooks to > -Mercurial. One additional hook could be beneficial: > +Mercurial, as well as a couple additional ones: > + > +* check branch heads: a hook to reject pushes which create a new head on > + an existing branch. The pusher then has to merge the superfetatory > heads > + and try pushing again. > + > +* check branches: a hook to reject all changesets not on an allowed named > + branch. This hook's whitelist will have to be updated when we want to > + create new maintenance branches. > + > +* check line endings: a hook, based on the `eol extension`_, to reject all > + changesets committing files with the wrong line endings. The commits > then > + have to be stripped and redone, possibly with the `eol extension`_ > enabled > + on the comitter's computer. > + > +One additional hook could be beneficial: > > * check contributors: in the current setup, all changesets bear the > username of committers, who must have signed the contributor > @@ -285,9 +300,8 @@ > information is kept in a versioned file called ``.hgeol``, and such a > file has already been checked into the Subversion repository. > > -A hook on the server side that turns down any changegroup or changeset > -introducing inconsistent newline data can still be implemented, if > -deemed necessary. > +A hook also exists on the server side to reject any changeset > +introducing inconsistent newline data (see above). > > .. _eol extension: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension > .. _win32text extension: > http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Win32TextExtension > ___ > Python-checkins mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-checkins > ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r88676 - peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:52:58 +0200 Eli Bendersky wrote: > The PEP (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0385/) says in "Timeline": > > 2010-03-05: final conversion (tentative) > > I assume 2011-03-05 is meant here. Oh... I guess I was a bit optimistic. Thanks for noticing Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] r88676 - peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt
On 01.03.2011 14:45, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Éric Araujo wrote: >> All French core developers know I’m French too, but other people on this >> list could have mistaken me, you’re right. > > I actually assumed it was something like that, but assumptions are > deucedly dangerous things with an annoying habit of biting you when > you least expect it :) Just like the French. Georg ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r88676 - peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt
On 01.03.2011 16:05, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:52:58 +0200 > Eli Bendersky wrote: >> The PEP (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0385/) says in "Timeline": >> >> 2010-03-05: final conversion (tentative) >> >> I assume 2011-03-05 is meant here. > > Oh... I guess I was a bit optimistic. > > Thanks for noticing Hey, I still got the time machine locked away in my parents' basement... Georg ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] devinabox: Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way
The biggest problem with make test is it is not exactly the same as the script (e.g., no automatic -j usage). It also is not cross-platform since Windows dev's are left out without installing cygwin. And we can't simply use -m test as that leaves out flags passed to the interpreter. On Mar 1, 2011 5:45 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 23:36:38 +1000 > Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:03 AM, brett.cannon wrote: >> > brett.cannon pushed 3e5a61adb41d to devinabox: >> > >> > http://hg.python.org/devinabox/rev/3e5a61adb41d >> > changeset: 8:3e5a61adb41d >> > user:Brett Cannon >> > date:Fri Feb 25 17:35:37 2011 -0800 >> > summary: >> > Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way possible. >> >> Is there any particular reason not to stick this in the main >> repository somewhere, so it is available in all working copies, not >> just devinabox? > > We already have "make test" and "make buildbottest" in addition to > "./python -m test". I think another subtly different way of running the > tests would be a nuisance. > > cheers > > Antoine. > > > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] devguide (hg_transition): Update instructions to use the new "server-side clone" button
> user:Antoine Pitrou > date:Tue Mar 01 20:51:42 2011 +0100 > summary: > Update instructions to use the new "server-side clone" button That’s seriously awesome. Where can we have a look at the implementation? A remark: Having all clones created under a dedicated namespace (say sandbox) could make the hg.python.org listing clearer, since all user clones would be grouped. Some way to edit the clone description and contact would be great. Even without that, kudos for the excellent feature. Regards ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] devguide (hg_transition): Update instructions to use the new "server-side clone" button
On 01.03.2011 21:36, Éric Araujo wrote: >> user:Antoine Pitrou >> date:Tue Mar 01 20:51:42 2011 +0100 >> summary: >> Update instructions to use the new "server-side clone" button > > That’s seriously awesome. > > Where can we have a look at the implementation? Have a guess :) > A remark: Having all clones created under a dedicated namespace (say > sandbox) could make the hg.python.org listing clearer, since all user > clones would be grouped. Yes, but it also makes it harder to group by user. > Some way to edit the clone description and contact would be great. Seconded. Georg ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] devguide (hg_transition): Update instructions to use the new "server-side clone" button
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:36:29 +0100 Éric Araujo wrote: > > user:Antoine Pitrou > > date:Tue Mar 01 20:51:42 2011 +0100 > > summary: > > Update instructions to use the new "server-side clone" button > > That’s seriously awesome. > > Where can we have a look at the implementation? It's versioned on the server. I can send you a diff in private. I don't know how sensitive it might be, probably not unless there's some glaring security hole in it. > A remark: Having all clones created under a dedicated namespace (say > sandbox) could make the hg.python.org listing clearer, since all user > clones would be grouped. Sure, we can change the enforced convention depending on the majority's preference. I chose that one because other devs thought it would be bad to let people create many repos at the top-level. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
Hello, There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that "#!/usr/bin/env python2" be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago seems relevant: : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. Thanks, Kerrick Staley ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] contributors survey?
Hello, In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2011-February/001340.html, I was asking whether it would be useful to make a survey of past contributors, as in: First, we did a survey of all our past developers who had left the project, asking them why they had left. This was just a free-form survey, allowing people to answer any way they wanted. (from the quoted article in the thread linked above) Since I didn't get any answer, I wonder if the idea simply got overlooked, or if there's no need at all. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote: Hello, There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that "#!/usr/bin/env python2" be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago seems relevant: : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" would be python3.x. And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break scripts even many, many years from now. Eric. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
I understand, but is it at least possible to officially recommend that python, python2, and python3 all exist, that distributions point python to python2, and that scripts specify which of python2 and python3 they are using? This would create a redundant system that doesn't avoids problems even if distributions do decide to ignore the second point. If not, can someone point me to official documentation that recommends that python always invoke Python2, so that I can take the case up with the Arch developers? Thanks, Kerrick Staley On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote: > >> Hello, >> There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at >> /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the >> documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is >> defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that >> "#!/usr/bin/env python2" be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. >> This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), >> point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including >> Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the >> python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving >> cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions >> begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for >> the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 >> shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which >> should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago >> seems relevant: : >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html >> Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers >> themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it >> consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. >> >> > I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the > year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" would be > python3.x. > > And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break > scripts even many, many years from now. > > Eric. > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/mail%40kerrickstaley.com > ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
2011-03-01 22:50:34 Kerrick Staley napisał(a): > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > > On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote: > >> Hello, > >> There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at > >> /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the > >> documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is > >> defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that > >> "#!/usr/bin/env python2" be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. > >> This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), > >> point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including > >> Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the > >> python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving > >> cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions > >> begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for > >> the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 > >> shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which > >> should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago > >> seems relevant: : > >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html > >> Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers > >> themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it > >> consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. > >> > >> > > I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the > > year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" would be > > python3.x. > > > > And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break > > scripts even many, many years from now. > > I understand, but is it at least possible to officially recommend that > python, python2, and python3 all exist, that distributions point python to > python2, and that scripts specify which of python2 and python3 they are > using? This would create a redundant system that doesn't avoids problems > even if distributions do decide to ignore the second point. If not, can > someone point me to official documentation that recommends that python > always invoke Python2, so that I can take the case up with the Arch > developers? Gentoo most likely will switch /usr/bin/python to Python 3 in this year. Majority of Python-2-only packages have been already prepared to use /usr/bin/python2 or /usr/bin/python2.X. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote: >> >> Hello, >> There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at >> /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the >> documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is >> defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that >> "#!/usr/bin/env python2" be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. >> This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), >> point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including >> Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the >> python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving >> cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions >> begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for >> the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 >> shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which >> should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago >> seems relevant: : >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html >> Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers >> themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it >> consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. >> > > I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the year > before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" would be > python3.x. > > And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break scripts > even many, many years from now. Unfortunately distros are not following these guidelines. As long as we still have the pythonX.Y links I think it's better to have "python2", "python3" and "python" than total anarchy. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Hello, > > In > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2011-February/001340.html, > I was asking whether it would be useful to make a survey of past > contributors, as in: > > First, we did a survey of all our past developers who had left > the project, asking them why they had left. This was just a > free-form survey, allowing people to answer any way they wanted. > > (from the quoted article in the thread linked above) > > Since I didn't get any answer, I wonder if the idea simply got > overlooked, or if there's no need at all. > > Regards > > Antoine. I think doing a survey like this is a *really* good idea. We have an account at our disposal (as the PSF) at http://www.surveymonkey.com/ which we use for PyCon feedback. Maybe we can leverage that, if we can come up with good questions? jesse ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Eric Smith wrote: >> On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at >>> /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the >>> documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is >>> defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that >>> "#!/usr/bin/env python2" be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. >>> This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), >>> point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including >>> Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the >>> python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving >>> cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions >>> begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for >>> the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 >>> shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which >>> should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago >>> seems relevant: : >>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html >>> Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers >>> themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it >>> consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. >>> >> >> I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the year >> before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" would be >> python3.x. >> >> And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break scripts >> even many, many years from now. > > Unfortunately distros are not following these guidelines. As long as > we still have the pythonX.Y links I think it's better to have > "python2", "python3" and "python" than total anarchy. If python upstream would make it clear that that *IS* the policy, distros might follow it. Right now, there is no clear guidance, as far as I can tell. If you do not want distros making python be a link to python3, please say so loudly, preferably on a webpage on python.org that users can point the distros to. James ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:26:05 -0500, Eric Smith wrote: > On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote: > > Hello, > > There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at > > /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the > > documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is > > defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that > > "#!/usr/bin/env python2" be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. > > This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), > > point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including > > Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the > > python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving > > cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions > > begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for > > the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 > > shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which > > should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago > > seems relevant: : > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html > > Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers > > themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it > > consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. > > > > I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the > year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" > would be python3.x. > > And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break > scripts even many, many years from now. It sounds like the distributions aren't going to cooperate with us. Arch has already switched. Gentoo will allow the user to switch /usr/bin/python to point to python3, and I suspect this will become the default at some point. I'm not sad about that, myself. --David ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
2011/3/1 Antoine Pitrou : > > Hello, > > In > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2011-February/001340.html, > I was asking whether it would be useful to make a survey of past > contributors, as in: > > First, we did a survey of all our past developers who had left > the project, asking them why they had left. This was just a > free-form survey, allowing people to answer any way they wanted. > > (from the quoted article in the thread linked above) > > Since I didn't get any answer, I wonder if the idea simply got > overlooked, or if there's no need at all. How do you determine past developers? -- Regards, Benjamin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:12:14 -0500 Jesse Noller wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > In > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2011-February/001340.html, > > I was asking whether it would be useful to make a survey of past > > contributors, as in: > > > > First, we did a survey of all our past developers who had left > > the project, asking them why they had left. This was just a > > free-form survey, allowing people to answer any way they wanted. > > > > (from the quoted article in the thread linked above) > > > > Since I didn't get any answer, I wonder if the idea simply got > > overlooked, or if there's no need at all. > > > > Regards > > > > Antoine. > > I think doing a survey like this is a *really* good idea. We have an > account at our disposal (as the PSF) at http://www.surveymonkey.com/ > which we use for PyCon feedback. Maybe we can leverage that, if we can > come up with good questions? Following the example given in the original article, I was considering a single freeform question: "why did you stop contributing after your last patch to CPython?" (of course, that text should be decorated with a greeting and an introduction and the wording can be improved). Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:23:42 -0600 Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2011/3/1 Antoine Pitrou : > > > > Hello, > > > > In > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2011-February/001340.html, > > I was asking whether it would be useful to make a survey of past > > contributors, as in: > > > > First, we did a survey of all our past developers who had left > > the project, asking them why they had left. This was just a > > free-form survey, allowing people to answer any way they wanted. > > > > (from the quoted article in the thread linked above) > > > > Since I didn't get any answer, I wonder if the idea simply got > > overlooked, or if there's no need at all. > > How do you determine past developers? Using Misc/ACKS. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
2011/3/1 Antoine Pitrou : > On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:23:42 -0600 > Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> 2011/3/1 Antoine Pitrou : >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > In >> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2011-February/001340.html, >> > I was asking whether it would be useful to make a survey of past >> > contributors, as in: >> > >> > First, we did a survey of all our past developers who had left >> > the project, asking them why they had left. This was just a >> > free-form survey, allowing people to answer any way they wanted. >> > >> > (from the quoted article in the thread linked above) >> > >> > Since I didn't get any answer, I wonder if the idea simply got >> > overlooked, or if there's no need at all. >> >> How do you determine past developers? By that I meant how do you determine that they're not actively contributing? -- Regards, Benjamin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
Le mardi 01 mars 2011 à 16:41 -0600, Benjamin Peterson a écrit : > 2011/3/1 Antoine Pitrou : > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:23:42 -0600 > > Benjamin Peterson wrote: > >> 2011/3/1 Antoine Pitrou : > >> > > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > In > >> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2011-February/001340.html, > >> > I was asking whether it would be useful to make a survey of past > >> > contributors, as in: > >> > > >> >First, we did a survey of all our past developers who had left > >> >the project, asking them why they had left. This was just a > >> >free-form survey, allowing people to answer any way they wanted. > >> > > >> > (from the quoted article in the thread linked above) > >> > > >> > Since I didn't get any answer, I wonder if the idea simply got > >> > overlooked, or if there's no need at all. > >> > >> How do you determine past developers? > > By that I meant how do you determine that they're not actively contributing? hg log -k "contributor name" Also, memory helps although it's quite perfectible :) At worse, we'll have a couple of false positives and we'll have to apologize to them... Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] devinabox: Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way
Antoine> We already have "make test" and "make buildbottest" in addition Antoine> to "./python -m test". I think another subtly different way of Antoine> running the tests would be a nuisance. I see nothing wrong with "make rigoroustest" or "make brutaltest". I routinely use "make test" but never remember the necessary incantations for enabling everything that regrtest can do (random test order, leak tests, skip nothing, etc). Having that encoded in a make target would at least mean all I need to do is egrep 'test *:' Makefile to see what my choices were. Skip ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] devinabox: Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:49:42 -0600 [email protected] wrote: > > Antoine> We already have "make test" and "make buildbottest" in addition > Antoine> to "./python -m test". I think another subtly different way of > Antoine> running the tests would be a nuisance. > > I see nothing wrong with "make rigoroustest" or "make brutaltest". I > routinely use "make test" but never remember the necessary incantations for > enabling everything that regrtest can do (random test order, leak tests, > skip nothing, etc). Well, "make buildbottest" should do the trick. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] devinabox: Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way
Antoine> Well, "make buildbottest" should do the trick. Perhaps it should be given a somewhat less specialized sounding name... Skip ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] devinabox: Add a Python script which will run the test suite in the most rigorous way
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:05:25 -0600 [email protected] wrote: > > Antoine> Well, "make buildbottest" should do the trick. > > Perhaps it should be given a somewhat less specialized sounding name... It *is* specialized since it's meant primarily for the buildbots :) It happens to be usable by anyone else, but that's not the goal. That said, I think it's usually best to choose the desired flags for the task at hand, which will of course vary (do you want to test refleaks? to enable networking or largefile tests? do you have several CPUs to spawn tests in parallel on?). The devguide has a small section about this: http://docs.python.org/devguide/runtests.html#running (also, as Brett mentioned, a make target doesn't really help Windows users) Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
I think that it's a good idea to not only state that python should be Python 2, but also that python2 should be implemented and that scripts should specify it, to provide redundancy and handle distros that won't or have not yet switched back to the python -> python2 convention. I've . In any event, I do agree that there needs to be a clear standard coming from the Python community. Should I submit a PEP for this? I'm also going to talk to the Arch devs and ask them to follow these proposed standards (or at least to allow python to be user-switchable). Thanks, Kerrick Staley On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:15 PM, James Y Knight wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > >> On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at > >>> /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the > >>> documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is > >>> defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that > >>> "#!/usr/bin/env python2" be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. > >>> This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), > >>> point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including > >>> Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the > >>> python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving > >>> cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions > >>> begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for > >>> the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 > >>> shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which > >>> should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago > >>> seems relevant: : > >>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html > >>> Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers > >>> themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it > >>> consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. > >>> > >> > >> I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the > year > >> before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" would be > >> python3.x. > >> > >> And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break > scripts > >> even many, many years from now. > > > > Unfortunately distros are not following these guidelines. As long as > > we still have the pythonX.Y links I think it's better to have > > "python2", "python3" and "python" than total anarchy. > > If python upstream would make it clear that that *IS* the policy, distros > might follow it. Right now, there is no clear guidance, as far as I can > tell. If you do not want distros making python be a link to python3, please > say so loudly, preferably on a webpage on python.org that users can point > the distros to. > > James > > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/mail%40kerrickstaley.com > ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
Am 02.03.2011 00:16, schrieb Kerrick Staley: > I think that it's a good idea to not only state that python should be > Python 2, but also that python2 should be implemented and that scripts > should specify it, to provide redundancy and handle distros that won't > or have not yet switched back to the python -> python2 convention. I've > . In any event, I do agree that there needs to be a clear standard > coming from the Python community. > Should I submit a PEP for this? If you want this to become policy: yes, you will have to specify a PEP for that. Even a PEP might not make it policy (practicality beats purity), but not having a PEP guarantees that it won't become policy. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
>> I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the >> year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" >> would be python3.x. >> >> And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break >> scripts even many, many years from now. > > It sounds like the distributions aren't going to cooperate with us. > Arch has already switched. Gentoo will allow the user to switch > /usr/bin/python to point to python3, and I suspect this will become > the default at some point. > > I'm not sad about that, myself. Neither am I. I personally also disagree with the decision taken at the language summit (and believe that the language summit is no place to make such decisions). Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:45 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >>> I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the >>> year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" >>> would be python3.x. >>> >>> And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break >>> scripts even many, many years from now. >> >> It sounds like the distributions aren't going to cooperate with us. >> Arch has already switched. Gentoo will allow the user to switch >> /usr/bin/python to point to python3, and I suspect this will become >> the default at some point. >> >> I'm not sad about that, myself. > > Neither am I. I personally also disagree with the decision taken at > the language summit (and believe that the language summit is no place > to make such decisions). I don't recall which side I was on at the time, but now I agree we should try to encourage distros to use python2 for Python 2.x and python for whatever they like to promote. I think a PEP would help, but in this case I would request that before the PEP gets written (it can be a really short one!) somebody actually go out and get consensus from a number of important distros. Besides Barry, do we have any representatives of distros here? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On 02/03/11 08:06, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Eric Smith wrote: On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote: Hello, There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that "#!/usr/bin/env python2" be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago seems relevant: : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" would be python3.x. And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break scripts even many, many years from now. Unfortunately distros are not following these guidelines. As long as we still have the pythonX.Y links I think it's better to have "python2", "python3" and "python" than total anarchy. This was brought up when Arch Linux switched /usr/bin/python to point a python3 around six months ago, and at the time no-one could actually recall the decision to always point /usr/bin/python at python2 forever. In fact, the only decision that was clearly made (and acted on) was that "make install" for python3 would install /usr/bin/python3. e.g. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg53204.html But if that decision was made, it was not documented anywhere that I can find, so effectively was a non-decision... Deciding that /usr/bin/python going to always point at python2 just makes me think that python3 is always going to be a second class citizen. Eventually python-2.7 will be long gone and it would seem wrong for people will still be using "python3" to run their scripts once python-3.xx is the primary python version. So a transition is going to need to be made here at some stage. Most distributions have been providing the /usr/bin/python2 symlink for a long time, with Debian being the notable exception. I think adding such a symlink is in the realm of what distribution packagers can choose to do on their own, but having it done automatically for python-2.7 would also be of benefit. Allan ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
> I think a PEP would help, but in this case I would request that before > the PEP gets written (it can be a really short one!) somebody actually > go out and get consensus from a number of important distros. Besides > Barry, do we have any representatives of distros here? Matthias Klose represents Debian, Dave Malcolm represents Redhat, and Dirkjan Ochtman represents Gentoo. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:45:51 +0100 "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > >> I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the > >> year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3" > >> would be python3.x. > >> > >> And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break > >> scripts even many, many years from now. > > > > It sounds like the distributions aren't going to cooperate with us. > > Arch has already switched. Gentoo will allow the user to switch > > /usr/bin/python to point to python3, and I suspect this will become > > the default at some point. > > > > I'm not sad about that, myself. > > Neither am I. I personally also disagree with the decision taken at > the language summit (and believe that the language summit is no place > to make such decisions). +1 with the latter. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:14:32AM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > > I think a PEP would help, but in this case I would request that before > > the PEP gets written (it can be a really short one!) somebody actually > > go out and get consensus from a number of important distros. Besides > > Barry, do we have any representatives of distros here? > > Matthias Klose represents Debian, Dave Malcolm represents Redhat, > and Dirkjan Ochtman represents Gentoo. > I'm here from Fedora. -Toshio pgpvGuHioHuln.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r88676 - peps/trunk/pep-0385.txt
On 03/01/2011 01:22 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: On 01.03.2011 16:05, Antoine Pitrou wrote: On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:52:58 +0200 Eli Bendersky wrote: The PEP (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0385/) says in "Timeline": 2010-03-05: final conversion (tentative) I assume 2011-03-05 is meant here. Oh... I guess I was a bit optimistic. Thanks for noticing Hey, I still got the time machine locked away in my parents' basement... It's a time machine, there is no way you can be sure it isn't being used in this present time, from some other time period. ;-) Cheers, Ron ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
Antoine Pitrou writes: > Following the example given in the original article, I was considering > a single freeform question: "why did you stop contributing after your > last patch to CPython?" (of course, that text should be decorated with > a greeting and an introduction and the wording can be improved). Does anybody ever stop contributing? Occasionally, yes, but in most cases it's just that this interval between explicit contributions (usually patches, but also reviews, PEPs, mailing list posting, bug reports, ...) is longer than the period since the last one. :-) How about Hello. We [the PSF?] would like to thank you for your past patches to CPython, and take this opportunity to learn something about how to improve our workflow. We would appreciate your cooperation in answering the following question. It has been more than one year since your last patch to CPython. We would like to understand why it's been so long [, and if there is anything we could do to help you contribute patches more frequently]. The clause in brackets is outside the scope of Antoine's wording, but I assume that's where we're going with this. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Antoine Pitrou writes: > > > Following the example given in the original article, I was considering > > a single freeform question: "why did you stop contributing after your > > last patch to CPython?" (of course, that text should be decorated with > > a greeting and an introduction and the wording can be improved). > > Does anybody ever stop contributing? Occasionally, yes, but in most > cases it's just that this interval between explicit contributions > (usually patches, but also reviews, PEPs, mailing list posting, bug > reports, ...) is longer than the period since the last one. :-) > > How about > > Hello. We [the PSF?] would like to thank you for your past > patches to CPython, and take this opportunity to learn something > about how to improve our workflow. We would appreciate your > cooperation in answering the following question. > > It has been more than one year since your last patch to CPython. > We would like to understand why it's been so long [, and if there > is anything we could do to help you contribute patches more > frequently]. > > The clause in brackets is outside the scope of Antoine's wording, but > I assume that's where we're going with this. Personally, I like this, but I would skip the PSF aspect of it, and focus on core. The PSF exists "outside" of the domain of CPython and should probably avoid taking too much credit or inserting itself more. :) jesse ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 22:24 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Hello, > > In > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2011-February/001340.html, > I was asking whether it would be useful to make a survey of past > contributors, as in: > > First, we did a survey of all our past developers who had left > the project, asking them why they had left. This was just a > free-form survey, allowing people to answer any way they wanted. > > (from the quoted article in the thread linked above) > > Since I didn't get any answer, I wonder if the idea simply got > overlooked, or if there's no need at all. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/anikom15%40gmail.com If I got a message like that in my mailbox I would be rather annoyed, mark it as spam, and be less likely to contribute again. Just my point of view. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 11:45:47PM +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > hg log -k "contributor name" > > Also, memory helps although it's quite perfectible :) > > At worse, we'll have a couple of false positives and we'll have to > apologize to them... There are about 948 folks in the Misc/ACKS and many would have been 1/2 time contributors. There should be a handful of them who might have contributed significantly. Just asking them would be good idea (if you really need to survey). Personally, I am not sure how this survey is going to be helpful. -- Senthil ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 11:45:47PM +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> hg log -k "contributor name" >> >> Also, memory helps although it's quite perfectible :) >> >> At worse, we'll have a couple of false positives and we'll have to >> apologize to them... > > There are about 948 folks in the Misc/ACKS and many would have been > 1/2 time contributors. There should be a handful of them who might > have contributed significantly. Just asking them would be good idea > (if you really need to survey). It's impossible to match the ACKS file with email addresses; that was never the intention anyway, it was meant to thank people. (Some people are on the list for reasons having nothing to do with code contributions, too.) > Personally, I am not sure how this survey is going to be helpful. I think it would be at least mildly useful to find out why people who contributed code in the past stopped contributing. Over the years I've sometimes had the opportunity to find out -- the reasons more often than not had to do with life or career changes that are out of our control; some have stopped contributing code to CPython but are contributing in other ways (e.g. they may have started a different project). But I wouldn't be surprised if some people had regrets about the way the community works (I can recall at least one such case) and it would be useful to learn from those occasions, if they'll let us. And the numbers might tell us something, too. Perhaps a better way than scanning ACKS would be to collect contributor email addresses from the svn logs and note those that haven't contributed in the past 12 months. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
