On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> P.S. Can people please remember to block commits that shouldn't be
>> merged into 3.0?
>
> Can you remind me how to do that? Thanks.
Certainly! Just run "svnmerge block -r [a revision]" [1] in your py3k
working copy and th
> P.S. Can people please remember to block commits that shouldn't be
> merged into 3.0?
Can you remind me how to do that? Thanks.
Bill
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
P.S. Can people please remember to block commits that shouldn't be
merged into 3.0? (Or even better, merge the ones you make that
should.) I feel rather nervous deciding whether something should be
merged or not when it's an edge case.
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
"There's no place like 127.0.0.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm in the process of doing the conversion. asyncore.py was no
> problem, but asynchat.py relies heavily on the 2.x buffer() object
> (specifically the slicing aspects thereof), which went away, to be
> replaced by the s
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just merged a good chunk of the trunk -> py3k queue, but there are
>> still some things to be dealt with:
>>
>> - bsddb It seesm bsddb stil
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just merged a good chunk of the trunk -> py3k queue, but there are
> still some things to be dealt with:
>
> - bsddb It seesm bsddb still has yet to be ported to Py3k. See #2887.
>
> - The asyncore/asynchat patches. Jo
> - SSL changes
I've been maintaining the Lib/ssl.py, Lib/test/test_ssl.py and
Modules/_ssl.c files separately for the two trees. I think the
underlying changes in socket.py, and the IO subsystem, still make this
a good idea, but I'm willing to be convinced differently.
There's yet a third varia
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just merged a good chunk of the trunk -> py3k queue, but there are
> still some things to be dealt with:
>
> - bsddb It seesm bsddb still has yet to be ported to Py3k. See #2887.
>
> - The asyncore/asynchat patches. Jo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 2, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Marcin ‘Qrczak’ Kowalczyk wrote:
2008/7/2 "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm puzzled how this might have happened.
Someone obviously did search & replace a5 -> b1, intended for Python
version, but applied to m
>> I'm puzzled how this might have happened.
>
> Someone obviously did search & replace a5 -> b1, intended for Python
> version, but applied to md5 too.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the explanation. That might have been me, as well :-(
Regards,
Martin
___
Pytho
2008/7/2 "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm puzzled how this might have happened.
Someone obviously did search & replace a5 -> b1, intended for Python
version, but applied to md5 too.
--
Marcin Kowalczyk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
__
I just merged a good chunk of the trunk -> py3k queue, but there are
still some things to be dealt with:
- bsddb It seesm bsddb still has yet to be ported to Py3k. See #2887.
- The asyncore/asynchat patches. Josiah, can you do this?
- The Mac 4-way arch build.
- The bin/hex/oct float things. (T
> I downloaded the file with firefox on linux. My md5sum agrees with
> yours. I'd say there is a typo on the downloads page as the chance of
> an incorrect file with an md5sum which differs by only 2 bits is
> astronomically small.
I can confirm that the result that you all got is the correct on
Paul Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the download page (http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/) for=20
> Python 3000 shows :
>
> 9119625244b17aa35ed94b655a2b2135 13491200 python-3.0b1.msi
>
> but I got
>
> 9119625244a57aa35ed94b655a2b2135 13491200 python-3.0b1.msi
>
> (44a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[Thanks Eric Smith for pinging me on this one - BAW]
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Python-3000] PEP 3101 str.format() equivalent of '%#o/
x/X'?
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:14:18 -0700
From: Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
15 matches
Mail list logo