Ah. I'm glad I brought it up.
When the time comes to port my code, I'll try skipping step 1 first.
--
Daryl
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Martin v. Löwis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think you misunderstand the role of 2.6. See the seven steps under
> > "The recommended
> I think you misunderstand the role of 2.6. See the seven steps under
> "The recommended development model for a project that needs to support
> Python 2.6 and 3.0 simultaneously..." in
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/#compatibility-and-transition.
> Step 1 reads "Port your
> So this means, though, that folks running from SVN will still need to
> run setup.py every time they update, right? Not that that's a
> dealbreaker -- I think Django-on-Py3k'ers will be on the cutting edge
> anyway -- just wanna check.
Correct. distutils operates using time-stamps, so it
I think you misunderstand the role of 2.6. See the seven steps under
"The recommended development model for a project that needs to support
Python 2.6 and 3.0 simultaneously..." in
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/#compatibility-and-transition.
Step 1 reads "Port your project to Python
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Daryl Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> > Ahh -- this was the part I was missing; my apologies for being dense.
> > I've been thinking of 2to3 as a one-time tool -- run it to move to
> > 3.0, and never
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Martin v. Löwis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So leave the code as-is, and have 2to3 fix it at installation
> > time (whenever setup.py is invoked by 3.x; setup.py itself
>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Martin v. Löwis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So leave the code as-is, and have 2to3 fix it at installation
> time (whenever setup.py is invoked by 3.x; setup.py itself
> runs without changes on 3.x)
Ahh -- this was the part I was missing; my apologies for
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:50 AM, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > [ugly stories about other source transformer tools and
> > how they failed deleted]
>
Actually, the translator was successful. I'm not talking about any
specific project, I'm mentioning my opinion of
Hallo Martin,
offensichtlich hält sich das Interesse der Django-Entwickler in Grenzen.
Kann ich die Sache anderweitig unterstützen, eventuell als Co-Mentor von der
Django-Seite? Mit was für zeitlichen Anforderungen müsste ich da rechnen?
Ich hab das noch nicht gemacht.
Ich bin allerdings von
On Fri, Mar 28 2008 at 11:20:52AM BRT, Peter Herndon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Alberto said, and James and Jacob, I don't see enough value for
> Django. The key here is to define a project that results in a usable
> code contribution by the end of the summer *for the project*. Not for
>
El 28/03/2008, a las 11:50, Michael Radziej escribió:
>
> Hi,
>
>> [ugly stories about other source transformer tools and
>> how they failed deleted]
Not to understimate the student nor the Python community, but think
about it in terms of developer time. TrollTech worked on Qt4 for
Hi,
> [ugly stories about other source transformer tools and
> how they failed deleted]
I don't understand all the negative thinking.
Django would probably be a great show case to see whether the planned
transition to python 3.0 works as it is designed. If things do not work out,
this might
El 28/03/2008, a las 5:42, Sage La Torra escribió:
>
> I'll throw in my 2 cents too:
>
> I think machine based translation is iffy at best. I'm not the most
> up-to-date on py3k, but I have experience with other such projects (I
> wrote a Perl 5 to Perl 6 translator for Summer of Code 2006).
I'll throw in my 2 cents too:
I think machine based translation is iffy at best. I'm not the most
up-to-date on py3k, but I have experience with other such projects (I
wrote a Perl 5 to Perl 6 translator for Summer of Code 2006). This is
just my opinion, but I think it would be best for Django
Hi,
I think that the pure process of porting Django is a good testcase for
python 3 and for 2to3. So, even if the resulting code could not be used,
the result would still be valuable to python. And that is also good for Django!
Just my 2c,
Michael
> The specific issues I've run into so far:
>
> * Exception-catching syntax (i.e. ``except Whatever as e`` vs.
> ``except Whatever, e``).
2to3 fixes these, and transparently transforms "the except clauses.
> * Unicode literals (u'...').
Likewise, 2to3 removes the u"" prefix.
So leave the
> > You can (probably) support Python 2.x and Python 3.x out of a single
> > source tree.
>
> From what I've read, this is true as long as the X after 2 is >= 6.
> That's a problem with Django's stated intent to support Python 2.3 on
> Django's release 1.0.
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Daryl Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you maintain them side-by-side, or do you just reject patches that
> require new features introduced in 2.4 and 2.5? (I just assumed that
> you maintain 2.3 compatibility by testing on 2.3.)
Exactly. It's not like
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No hurt feelings, no. However, I would find it useful if you could
> add specific reservations and doubts to that. What aspects of Django
> (that I perhaps haven't touch yet) do you consider unmaintainable
> under
> Please see my recent report: 0 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 seconds.
> You can (probably) support Python 2.x and Python 3.x out of a single
> source tree.
>From what I've read, this is true as long as the X after 2 is >= 6.
That's a problem with Django's stated intent to support Python 2.3 on
> I hope you won't take it the wrong way when I say I have an extremely
> difficult time believing that.
No hurt feelings, no. However, I would find it useful if you could
add specific reservations and doubts to that. What aspects of Django
(that I perhaps haven't touch yet) do you consider
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Martin v. Löwis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please see my recent report: 0 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 seconds.
> You can (probably) support Python 2.x and Python 3.x out of a single
> source tree.
I hope you won't take it the wrong way when I say I have an
> Except if Django has a Python 3.0 version, say, this fall, that means
> how many years of supporting two parallel versions of Django and
> merging features and fixes back and forth between them?
Please see my recent report: 0 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 seconds.
You can (probably) support
> I'm still a bit worried about the fact that, aside from Django being a
> moving target and Python 3.0 being a moving target, WSGI for Python
> 3.0 is *also* a moving target; there still seems to be a fair bit that
> hasn't been settled on how things ought to work.
That is the reason why I
Jacob writes:
> It's hard enough maintaining 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 side-by-side...
Do you maintain them side-by-side, or do you just reject patches that
require new features introduced in 2.4 and 2.5? (I just assumed that
you maintain 2.3 compatibility by testing on 2.3.)
--
Daryl
On Thu, Mar
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd argue that Python 3.0 is not that much of a moving target either. Of
> course, such a porting project would require following development of 2to3.
Then you need to read the Py3k PEPs more closely. PEP
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks again for your feedback, James! I'd love to hear more from other
> developers on this matter.
I have to say I agree with James on this one. SoC projects out to be
stuff that can *finished* in a
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Besides, people are already experimenting with porting their code to py3k,
> so I'm getting the feeling it won't take so long for libraries to get
> ported. Requests from Django developers who are already
On Thu, Mar 27 2008 at 06:25:52AM BRT, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mar 27, 7:17 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm still a bit worried about the fact that, aside from Django being a
> > moving target and Python 3.0 being a moving target, WSGI for Python
On Mar 27, 9:36 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:25 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 7:17 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Graham Dumpleton
>
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mar 27, 8:25 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mar 27, 7:17 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Graham Dumpleton
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Actually, I already have a copy of mod_wsgi mostly working on Python
>
On Mar 27, 7:17 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Graham Dumpleton
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, I already have a copy of mod_wsgi mostly working on Python
> > 3.0, just sorting out areas where now need to handle both unicode and
>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Graham Dumpleton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I already have a copy of mod_wsgi mostly working on Python
> 3.0, just sorting out areas where now need to handle both unicode and
> bytes, where before only used to have to deal with bytes (old string
>
On Mar 27, 4:41 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And it's extremely
> unlikely that there'll be stable web server interfaces to run behind;
> at this point we're still not quite certain what WSGI on Python 3.0 is
> going to look like, and though Graham is a god among mere
On Thu, Mar 27 2008 at 01:31:04AM BRT, Sage La Torra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wrote him and said I had contemplated porting Django to py3k as a
> > project for the Google Summer of Code. He answered that there was
> >
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin mentioned that he would be willing to co-mentor me for GSoC along
> with a Django developer, with either one being the "official" mentor.
>
> So I'd like to know what you think about this as a GSoC
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> A few days ago, Martin Löwis mentioned here and on the python-3000 list that
> he had started porting Django to Python-3000
>
>
37 matches
Mail list logo
