On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>> If we are not convinced that github issues provides
>> everything we need, I think we should provide feedback to the github
>> devs and stick with sourceforge for the time being.
>
> Here
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> Are you still maintaining the qt4 plot editor dialog? It doesn't
> appear to be working properly: setting the marker and linestyle
> options does not effect the plot (tested on Ubuntu Natty alpha, with
> the v1.0.x branch on pyth
Hi Pierre,
Are you still maintaining the qt4 plot editor dialog? It doesn't
appear to be working properly: setting the marker and linestyle
options does not effect the plot (tested on Ubuntu Natty alpha, with
the v1.0.x branch on python-2.7 and PyQt4-4.8.3). I have a really hard
time following the
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:21 PM, John Hunter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> > I was just looking through some code and I realized that if we are now
> > willing (able?) to drop support for 2.4-2.5, then maybe we could benefit
> > from some updates to our coding
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> I was just looking through some code and I realized that if we are now
> willing (able?) to drop support for 2.4-2.5, then maybe we could benefit
> from some updates to our coding practices? For example, I would personally
> love to see more
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 02/26/2011 04:51 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:29:55 -0500, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> >> [clip]
> >>> Yes. The minimum version for this Python 3.x compatib
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> If we are not convinced that github issues provides
> everything we need, I think we should provide feedback to the github
> devs and stick with sourceforge for the time being.
Having said that, depending on how the github devs respond, we mig
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> If we are not convinced that github issues provides
> everything we need, I think we should provide feedback to the github
> devs and stick with sourceforge for the time being.
Here is a copy of a message I just sent to supp...@github.com. If
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
> That's a good point. Until fairly recently, interactive behavior worked
> across backends only via ipython magic, so I think the non-interactive
> default had a solid historical rationale. Now, however, we could
> probably make interactive m
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Jouni K. Seppänen wrote:
> Darren Dale writes:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>>> On 02/26/2011 10:54 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> The submitter info is lost?
>>> And when it was originally submitted?
>>
>> No, I can improve it so this
Darren Dale writes:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>> On 02/26/2011 10:54 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>> The submitter info is lost?
>> And when it was originally submitted?
>
> No, I can improve it so this information is included.
That's clearly in the xml file, except tha
11 matches
Mail list logo
