-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 29, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> BTW, I am on #python-dev now if anybody wants to help and/or chat
> about the release. I'm also on IM and Jabber.
Oh, and I'm doing 2.6 first in case anybody is motivated to keep
looking for the te
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 29, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> They were failing for me a couple of days ago; checking now, they
>> still are, and test_itertools has been added to the
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They were failing for me a couple of days ago; checking now, they
> still are, and test_itertools has been added to the list of failing
> tests:
>
> test test_itertools failed -- Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA1
>
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > On Feb 29, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 29,
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
>
> >> I'll see what can be
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
>
> >> I'll see what can be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 29, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'll see what can be done to fix this particular problem, and try to
>> be more attentive to buildbot failure notice
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> It looks like the f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> It looks like the failures are shallow -- there's a "golden" expected
>> output which includes some silliness l
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like the failures are shallow -- there's a "golden" expected
> output which includes some silliness like the exact number of CPU
> seconds used.
Actually I take it back. The same approach works fine in the t
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one for whom test_profile and test_cProfile are failing
> > with a current Py3k head checkout?
>
>
> They were failing for me a couple of days ago; ch
On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Am I the only one for whom test_profile and test_cProfile are failing
> with a current Py3k head checkout?
They were failing for me a couple of days ago; checking now, they
still are, and test_itertools has been added to the list of failin
2008/2/29, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am I the only one for whom test_profile and test_cProfile are failing
> with a current Py3k head checkout?
Both fail for me too.
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Am I the only one for whom test_profile and test_cProfile are failing
> with a current Py3k head checkout?
No, they're failing across the board afaict. I won't have time to
look at them befor
Am I the only one for whom test_profile and test_cProfile are failing
with a current Py3k head checkout?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
16 matches
Mail list logo
