Christian Heimes cheimes.de> writes:
>
> Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > On mer, 2008-11-26 at 21:03 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm sure the
> >>> Python Software Foundation would easily get a free license of one of the
> >>> good commercial MSI installer generators.
> >> Can you reco
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
On mer, 2008-11-26 at 21:03 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
I'm sure the
Python Software Foundation would easily get a free license of one of the
good commercial MSI installer generators.
Can you recommend a specific one?
I've had good results with Advanced Installer:
h
> I will also try to get up early to do the release before my work day
> starts, to better coordinate with Euro time. So expect me on
> #python-dev tomorrow (my morning).
>
> Will that work for you?
If you delay the announcement until the binaries are ready, you should
feel free to work on it wh
-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
> 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 to work on so that the
> actual release is a matter of fiddling web pages and sending an
> announce
> Martin, maybe we can help you with the installers testing.
Thanks for the offer. See my other message, though - this is not the
point. If everything goes well, offloading testing just means that
I have to wait some time for the testers to come back, and do other
stuff meanwhile.
For the majorit
-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 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 because e
2008/11/18 "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> While I'm happy that Barry has automated his part to a high degree,
> my part is, unfortunately, much less automated. I could personally
> automate the build process a bit more, but part of it is also testing
> of the installers, which is manual.
> 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 sufficient.
>
> * .1 release two months after the .0 release
> * .2, .3, .4 and .5 release every qua
>> Should we release 2.6.1rc1, too?
>
> Do we need rc's for point releases?
We have been doing them in the past, a week before the release.
In this case, I could accept a waiver, given that the previous
release acts very well as a release candidate for this release.
Regards,
Martin
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 because everybody then knows when a patch is
due, from developers to downstream consumers.
From my point of vi
-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 wou
-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
Python
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 would mean that
Python 2.6.1 should be ready on 03-Dec (well, if Python 3.0 is ready
then!).
Should w
Le Tuesday 18 November 2008 11:03:02 Facundo Batista, vous avez écrit :
> 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 Python
> > 2.6.1 should be ready
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 Python
>> 2.6.1 should be ready on 03-Dec (well, if Python 3.0 is ready then!).
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 Python
> 2.6.1 should be ready on 03-Dec (well, if Python 3.0 is ready then!).
2.6.1 only two months after 2
-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
19 matches
Mail list logo
