On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 at 13:26 Neil Schemenauer
wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > You should take a look at this old deferred PEP:
> > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0407/
>
> Thanks, that's very close to what I was thinking. I would still add
> that we should be extra careful
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Neil Schemenauer
wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > You should take a look at this old deferred PEP:
> > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0407/
>
> Thanks, that's very close to what I was thinking. I would still add
> that we should be extra car
On 2017-01-24, Victor Stinner wrote:
> You should take a look at this old deferred PEP:
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0407/
Thanks, that's very close to what I was thinking. I would still add
that we should be extra careful about incompatible language features
until 2.7.x usage has mostly
2017-01-24 21:46 GMT+01:00 Neil Schemenauer :
> Maybe we could emulate the Linux kernel releases. I.e. have
> relatively fast moving development but also choose releases to give
> long maintenance cycles. Ideally the long term releases would be
> synchronized with OS distribitions (e.g. Red Hat,
On 2017-01-21, Brett Cannon wrote:
> So the common theme here regardless of whether you agree with Raymond or
> Victor's approach to development is that we are not getting enough code
> reviews to go around. To me that's what the systemic issue is that this
> email is bringing up.
I think there is
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 at 22:42 Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Jan 2017 11:26 pm, "Paul Moore" wrote:
>
>
> One question (and apologies if this has been discussed on another list
> somewhere) - my biggest bottleneck is the sheer number of python-bugs
> emails, and the difficulty of identifying one
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 at 11:15 Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Brett Cannon's message of 2017-01-21 19:51:48 +:
> > What I'm picking up from this is (as a gross oversimplification):
> >
> > * Victor _wants_ code reviews
> > * Raymond thinks we _need_ code reviews
> >
> > So the common them
