-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On this page:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
The text "This is a proeuction release" should probably read "This is
a production release". It would give a better first impression :)
Fixe
nloadable
distributions, see the Python 3.0 website:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I believe we are on track for releasing Python 3.0 final and 2.6.1
tomorrow. There is just one release blocker for 3.0 left -- Guido
needs to finish the What's New for 3.0.
This is bug 2306.
So that Martin can have something to work with when
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 23, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 06:29, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 22, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I just noticed that the Python 3 C API still contains
PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN.
This macro was a transition mechanism, to allow extensions to use
Py_ssize_t in PyArg_ParseTuple, while allowing other mod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Let's try this for 3.0rc4 then.
The current release is rc2. Skipping rc3 would confuse people'-)
Yeah, my calendar was wrong, but the PEP (and more importantly...
code!) was right :).
There is
/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSSbOhHEjvBPtnXfVAQLzBwP/dS2j4XhZMNdb28TG3ZblkSmlPS4IU20U
Vvq85inUkJ6idwKZBqa6brrD1hbqrl4UjKZh4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 19, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Martin, I'm keen on figuring out a way to reduce your workload, and
also
to coordinate releases better between us. I /think/ with timed
releases
I can tag a little early and give you something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
From my point of view bi-monthly release are too much. For a ?.?.1
release two months are fine because several issues are found by 3rd
party authors. But after that a release every quarter is suffi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Actually, I've wanted to do timed releases, though I think monthly
is unrealistic. Maybe every two months is about the right time
frame. Timed releases are nice be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0
final and 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:03 AM, Facundo Batista wrote:
2008/11/17 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0
final and
2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would mean that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0 final
and 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would mean that
Python 2.6.1 should be ready on 03-Dec (well, if Python 3.0 is ready
then!).
I'm still planning the las
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 12, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
poplib, imaplib and nntplib are fixed in Python 3.0rc2, cool.
I tested the smtplib module. It looks like .sendmail()
requires
an ASCII message (7 bits).
I tried to use the email package to enco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:54 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 2008-11-11 14:28, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg egenix.com> writes:
Why was the special case for None being "smaller" than all other
objects in Python removed from Python 3.0 ? (see objec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 7, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Victor Stinner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Great job Barry and all contributors who fixed the "last" bugs ;-)
Which reminds me that this release's star deve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 7, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi,
Great job Barry and all contributors who fixed the "last" bugs ;-)
Thanks!
The document "What's new in Python 3.0" in should be updated:
http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
downloadable distributions, see the Python
3.0 website:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
See PEP 361 for release schedule details:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
But if that's not the case, wouldn't it make more sense to keep
email out of
the initial 3.0 release, rather than put a half-broken version in
with
special "we can totally change the API for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 1:04 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
So I would hope that the users of such Betas would quickly discover
that they were producing garbage, report it to M$, and go back to
using a release version with only the usual expectation of b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Glenn Linderman wrote:
Even 8-bit binary can be translated into a
sequence of Unicode codepoints with the same numeric value, for
example.
No, no, no, no. Using latin-1 to tunnel binary data throu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2008, at 7:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
So here's a question (speaking as someone that has never had to go
near
the email module, and is unlikely to do so anytime soon): is this
something that should hold up the release of Python 3.0?
No
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
There need to be two (and I would say three is better) sets of APIs:
byte-oriented for handling the wire protocol, Unicode-oriented for
handling well-formed messages (both presentation and compo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
This is an interesting perspective... "stuff em" does come to mind :)
But I'm not at all clear on what you mean by a round-trip through
the email module. Let me see... if you are creating an ema
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There appears to be a bug in the documentation for 3.0. See issue 4266.
http://bugs.python.org/issue4266
I'm sorry that I'm too tired to figure out what the basic problem is.
I've made the issue a release blocker (the only one left for 3.0rc2),
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Andrew McNamara wrote:
That's a tricker case, but I think it should use bytes internally.
One of
the early goals of email was that be able to cope with malformed
MIME -
this includes incorrectly encoded messages. So
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guido,
Can you please make a BDFL pronouncement on issue 4211, specifically
the backward compatibility and API break for __path__ this late in the
game:
http://bugs.python.org/issue4211
If you can decide in the next 3 hours we can get the patc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
That's why we are all waiting on barry for python 3.0rc2 :-)
T minus 8h10m and counting...
- -B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSRGyvXEjvBPtnXfVAQKHywP/TRRnd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 28, 2008, at 04:12 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>What about smtplib or smtpd?
Yes, they should use bytes, as should the email package. The latter doesn't
though, and it needs a lot of work (we tried and failed at pycon).
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 17, 2008, at 4:36 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
1210 imaplib does not run under Python 3
3727 poplib module broken by str to unicode conversion
- These both have patches that need review
3714 nntplib module broken by str to unicode conversion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was supposed to release 3.0rc2 last night, but events caught up with
me. In going through the release blockers tonight, I do not think we
are ready to release. Here are the issues that need addressing:
Showstoppers:
3775 Update RELNOTES fil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I won't be able to cut another release between the 15th and 5th, so
at least that one should be 2 weeks. If we don't need the
additional rc, then we can release early, which would p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 rc 2
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 4
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
I've updated PEP 361 and the Google calendar with this schedule,
except that the PEP says that rc3 and r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Barry Warsaw]
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My
suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-No
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Barry Warsaw]
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
Given
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My
suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do
we n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is a reminder that Python 2.6 final is schedule for release next
Wednesday, October 1st.
Once again, I've gone through the release blocker issues and knocked
anything that doesn't specifically affect 2.6 to deferred blocker.
This leaves
/download/releases/2.6/
and the Python 3.0 web site:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
See PEP 361 for release schedule details:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 12, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
We had a lot of discussion recently about changing the release
schedule and
splitting Python 2.6 and 3.0. The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We had a lot of discussion recently about changing the release
schedule and splitting Python 2.6 and 3.0. There was general
consensus that this was a good idea, in order to hit our October 1
deadline for Python 2.6 final at least.
There is on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Even if I can't contribute very much at the moment, I'm still +1 to
that.
I doubt Python would get nice publicity if we released a 3.0 but had
to
tell everyone, "but don't really use it yet, it may
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I
don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do
care about it having 2.6.
I've talked with my contact at M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st
goal. We have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred
blockers. We do not have a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have
high hopes for rectifying all of these problems i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:04 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
2008/9/8 wesley chun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
the goal is admirable, but unless there are paying sponsors that
require this deadline be met, i'd suggest that we can push the
releases until they're ready. t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 7, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
(I have a few minor ET fixes, and possibly a Unicode 5.1 patch,
but have had absolutely no time to spend on that. is the window
still open?)
There are 8 open release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 7, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight. There are too many open
release blockers that I don't want to defer, and I'd like the
buildbots to churn through the b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm a little confused -- why did you remove the releas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm a little confused -- why did you remove the release notes for
previous betas but leave those for the alphas in place? ISTM that the
file was an accumulation of release notes throughout the vari
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
* I will try to find another Python area of interest to me, to fully
honor my commit privileges.
BTW Jesus, if you want to maintain the code on python.org, we can
create an area in the sandbox for you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I am still in favor of removing bsddb from Python 3.0. It depends on a
3rd party library of enormous complexity whose stability cannot always
be taken for granted. Arguments about code ownership, r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
I'm a bit worried about you restoring bsddb and be pulled-off shortly
again if I can't resolve any remaining issues in minutes :). But I
would
take the risk.
Don't worry about that. Guido's decisio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Since rc1 did not go out last night, bsddb could be restored. I still
don't think it should be, but at this point it's up to Guido to
override, and I will abide by his decision.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Dar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry> Or did he commit Mark's patch from bug 3772? If so, that
would
Barry> count as a reviewed patch.
The checkin message says issue 3726:
Author: vinay.sajip
Date: Wed Sep 3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 1:08 AM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
Frankly I don't see a big deal with not including it in *3.0* so long
as a reference to where to download it as an add on (jcea's pybsddb
site) is included in the release notes and PEP 3108. I've
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:31 AM, Facundo Batista wrote:
(I'll be hanging around in #python-dev today and tomorrow, btw, ping
me if I can help you)
Me too, though I'm a bit busy at work. Ping my nick 'barry' if you
need any RM-level decision.
- -Ba
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry> In addition, Mark reported in IRC that there are some
regressions
Barry> in the logging module.
Vinay apparently checked in some changes to the logging module with no
review. In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:28 AM, Mark Hammond wrote:
Barry writes:
In addition, Mark reported in IRC that there are some regressions in
the logging module.
3772 logging module fails with non-ascii data
Which according to the IRC discussion doesn't a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:14 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Barry]
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight.
Can I go ahead with some bug fixes and doc improvements
or should I wait until after Friday?
Doc fixes are fine. Please have bug fix patches re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight. There are too many open release
blockers that I don't want to defer, and I'd like the buildbots to
churn through the bsddb removal on all platforms. Let me first thank
Benjamin, Brett, Mark and Antoine for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 3, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
and I know Brett agrees, so that's it. On IRC, I've just asked
Benjamin
to do the honors for 3.0 and Brett will add the deprecations for 2.6.
I just committed the fix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 3, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
Christian Heimes wrote:
Jesus Cea wrote:
I can't reproduce the issue in my local Python3.0 development
version
(here, all tests passes fine). Any suggestion?.
Yeah, use my byte warning mode of Pytho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 21, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
So my question is whether it is still worth trying to remove the
module, or just leave it be.
:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.6/
and the Python 3.0 web site:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/
See PEP 361 for release schedule details:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pending a resolution of bug 3611 (which has an attached patch that
we're testing now), I plan on releasing 2.6 and 3.0 beta 3 tonight.
Please do not make any commits to the trees unless you ask me first,
until further notice. I am on #python-de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 19, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1878class attribute cache failure (regression)
- - Medium priority
- - Guido, there are some design choice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I will be hanging out as much as possible over the next two days on
the #python-dev channel on freenode IRC. If you have any last minute
decisions you need, that will be the most immediate way to get in
touch with me.
Modulo work commitments,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 19, 2008, at 4:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Barry, could you please take a look at http://bugs.python.org/issue2834
?
It's not marked as release blocker but if it doesn't integrate beta3
it will
probably not make it at all into 3.0 (unless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello everyone,
I am going to try to release the last planned beta of 2.6 and 3.0 this
Wednesday. Looking at the stable buildbots and showstopper bugs indicates
some work to do between now and then. Here are the showstoppers, along with
my recommend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 16, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Facundo Batista
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> The issue 600362 has two patches (one for 2.6 and the other for 3.0)
>> that are ready to commit (with a small
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 11, 2008, at 8:27 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Ah darn, that's a typo in the PEP. I definitely meant August 13, as
the Google calendar shows.
Do we think we can be ready for beta3 this Wednesday? If not, I'd
rather stick to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 11, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Barry Warsaw python.org> writes:
I agree. Our last beta is scheduled for this wednesday
Are you sure?
According to http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-July/014269.html
,
i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 7, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm trying to run the regression suite on a checkout of the Py3K
trunk
DO you mean the trunk (which is 2.6), or the py3k
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 7, 2008, at 5:09 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Is it too late for that ?
That kind of depends on how far other 3rd party projects are in
porting their extensions to Py3k, and how much they've bought into
these APIs. I recall that mechanically tra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:00 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
I acknowledge that some people would like to remove bsddb from the
standard lib, arguing it is a maintenance nightmare. I consider, then,
that the right thing to do would be to (fully) delegate this code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The releases have been made, so both the 3.0 branch and the trunk
(2.6) are now open for commits. Remember, there's only one more
planned beta, and we /really/ want to try to hit the October 1st
deadline. Let's do everything we can to stabiliz
/releases/3.0/
See PEP 361 for release schedule details:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0361/
Enjoy,
- -Barry
Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python 2.6/3.0 Release Manager
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:37 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
bsddb is in a very bad shape, as the 2.6 code hasn't been merged
in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please, no checkins on the 3.0 or 2.6 branches until further notice.
We're a go with the releases tonight. Email is not the quickest way
to get my attention. For that, use irc on freenode, #python-dev.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 17, 2008, at 09:57 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
>Barry Warsaw wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> I'll note that I plan to hold the beta3 releases until all release
>> blocker and deferred blockers are resolved.
>>
>Ian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We have green buildbots, yay! Thanks everyone for that.
However, we still have three release blocker issues that I am not
comfortable deferring.
3088 test_multiprocessing hangs intermittently on POSIX platforms
3375 _multiprocessing.so build pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 16, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think it's definitely too short. Martin has outlined a clean
solution to this
but it's a lot of changes. Let's wait for beta 3.
FWIW, I started writing code today. I couldn't complete it, eit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 15, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
If there is anything you need a decision on, please follow up to
this thread. I'm inundated with email so I can't watch every thread
on the mailing lists. Or ping me on #python-dev.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 16, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Barry Warsaw python.org> writes:
But 3139 appears important enough to hold up beta 2.
http://bugs.python.org/issue3139
bytearrays are not thread safe
Can we get this fixed by tomorrow? D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
But 3139 appears important enough to hold up beta 2.
http://bugs.python.org/issue3139
bytearrays are not thread safe
Can we get this fixed by tomorrow? Does anybody disagree that we
should hold up the release for this one? We don't have much tim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I can't give the privileges, Antoine, but I know that an SSH 2 public
key is going to be needed (see the dev FAQ at
http://www.python.org/dev/faq/ if you don't know how to generate one).
They will als
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 15, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A reminder: the second betas of Python 2.6 and 3.0 are schedule for
to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I realized that the previous schedule really called for a release
today 7/15 because I'm a bit busy tomorrow night. In any event, let's
try to stick to doing it on 7/16.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A reminder: the second betas of Python 2.6 and 3.0 are schedule for
tomorrow. I will try to hang out on #python-dev today and will start
looking at the trackers and buildbots. Hopefully, we're on track to
get the releases out!
If there is an
-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
-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:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 1, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
By the way, Barry, did you read the thread about regexps behaviour
vis-à-vis
bytes and unicode? Your advice was requested :-)
See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-June/014247.html
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 1, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Is a Google Ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 1, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 1, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 1, 2008, at 7:04 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 1, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 1, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
From: "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There are two options. I could shift everything for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 1, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I think we should put this one off. The previous betas were done on
June 18, and IMO the next beta should be about a month afterwards,
not 2 weeks.
I will not be able to make releases the week
1 - 100 of 406 matches
Mail list logo
