-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brett Cannon wrote:
| On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 ver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
| bsddb is in a very bad shape, as the 2.6 code hasn't been merged into
| 3k. I somewhat doubt that this gets resolved before the release, so
| bsddb users might need to skip 3.0.
Working on the 3.0 port just now. 03:40 in the
Nick Coghlan writes:
> And downloading pybsddb and installing really shouldn't be all that
> difficult :)
It shouldn't be, but lots of "enterprise"[1] environments will require
qualifying the "new" package according to corporate standards.
I won't argue that this is a sufficient reason to kee
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>>
>> It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
>> made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of what is
>> included in the documenta
Fred Drake wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of what is
included in the documentation (plus the dictionary interface that it
supports) shouldn't b
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of what is
included in the documentation (plus the dictionary interface that it
supports) shouldn't be terribly difficul
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Josiah Carlson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Invariably, when someone goes and removes a module, someone else is
>> going to complain, "but I used feature X, not having feature X will
>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Josiah Carlson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Invariably, when someone goes and removes a module, someone else is
> going to complain, "but I used feature X, not having feature X will
> break my code." We, as maintainers can then say, "if you cared,
> maintain it."
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 into
>>> 3k. I somewh
-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
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 into
>> 3k. I somewhat doubt that this gets resolved before the release, so
>> bsddb users might need t
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 into
3k. I somewhat doubt that this gets resolved before the release, so
bsddb users might need to skip 3.0.
In fact, bsddb as packages in core Python has rarely been in good sh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 18, 2008, at 01:27 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> The Windows buildbots are not very happy, though. test_ssl and
>> test_bsddb and constantly failing on both the trunk and py3k. I don't
>> know much about either of these items (or Windows for th
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:27 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Windows buildbots are not very happy, though. test_ssl and
>> test_bsddb and constantly failing on both the trunk and py3k. I don't
>> know much about either of these items (or Windows for that matter), so
>> any h
> The Windows buildbots are not very happy, though. test_ssl and
> test_bsddb and constantly failing on both the trunk and py3k. I don't
> know much about either of these items (or Windows for that matter), so
> any help would be greatly appreciated.
bsddb is in a very bad shape, as the 2.6 code h
> The Windows buildbots are not very happy, though. test_ssl ...
> constantly failing on both the trunk and py3k.
I've checked in patches for test_ssl on both branches. Let's see how
the Windows buildbots do.
Bill
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-30
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> We have green buildbots, yay! Thanks everyone for that.
>>
>> However, we still have three
> > test_ssl ... constantly failing on both the trunk and py3k.
>
> I'll take a closer look at this. It's the new test added in lately.
> Seems to be working on non-Windows platforms, so I'm guessing it's
> some Windows oddity, which I'm not very good at diagnosing. Worst
> comes to worst, we ca
> test_ssl ... constantly failing on both the trunk and py3k.
I'll take a closer look at this. It's the new test added in lately.
Seems to be working on non-Windows platforms, so I'm guessing it's
some Windows oddity, which I'm not very good at diagnosing. Worst
comes to worst, we can take out t
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 3375: Guido (thanks guido) looked into this, and while I banged my
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> We have green buildbots, yay! Thanks everyone for that.
The Windows buildbots are not very happy, though. test_ssl and
test_bsddb and constantly failing on both the trun
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3375: Guido (thanks guido) looked into this, and while I banged my
>> head on it a lot yesterday - guido's identified the issue, and now I
>> n
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3375: Guido (thanks guido) looked into this, and while I banged my
> head on it a lot yesterday - guido's identified the issue, and now I
> need to figure out a fix - help is welcome on this one.
You're welcome. I would hav
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -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_multi
27 matches
Mail list logo
