>> I'm trying to get the 3.3 and 3.4 branches so I can check my libraries
>> compatibility with older versions, but I do not see those branches as being
>> available:
>>
>> How can I get those?
>>
>>
>
>
> 3.3 and 3.4 existed before the migration from GitHub, so we don't have the
> branches.
>
>
On 12 April 2017 at 03:10, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
> Back to the original issue with reviewing the PR
> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/851
>
> Other than not being able to review the diff, is there any other problem?
> Can the PR be reviewed as is?
>
> Martin, you said: "I’m not really set
ship.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/10/2017 12:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So the response from Martin Panter
>>>> (https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/851#issuecomment-29275
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Is the mention bot helpful? (Our config is at
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.mention-bot and the docs are
> at https://github.com/facebook/mention-bot)
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Martin Panter wrote:
>
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Is the mention bot helpful? (Our config is at
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.mention-bot and the docs are
> at https://github.com/facebook/mention-bot)
On 11 March 2017 at 00:32, Donald Stufft wrote:
> I’ve found it helpful t
>> On 11/22/2016 08:16 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>> > On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:06, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
>> >> The configure file on the default and 3.6 branches have been generated
>> >> with autoconf 2.70 once again. This is annoying when you have to
>> >> maintain patches to this configure file in
On 24 June 2016 at 09:29, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 24.06.2016 11:14, Larry Hastings wrote:
>> Heads up! This is a courtesy reminder from your friendly 3.4 and 3.5 release
>> manager. Here's a list of all the changes since 3.5.2rc1 that are currently
>> going into 3.5.2 final:
>>
>> * 155e6654
On 29 January 2016 at 21:59, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> On 29.01.16 21:56, Ezio Melotti wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Serhiy Storchaka
>> wrote:
>>> Some deprecation can be documentation-only.
>>
>> Do you have examples where this has been done?
>
> An attribute of a module. [. . .]
>
> What and when to deprecate
> ==
>
> * The number of releases before an API is removed is decided
> on a case-by-case basis depending on widely used the API is
depending on [how] widely used
> * In general it's better to be conservative, and if the API is
> deprecated
On 3 September 2015 at 10:03, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> I did a merge head with Victor's change in 2.7 before pushing my change.
> Can someone confirm if I did it right? If anything was wrong, how to correct
> it?
It looks like you did it right. If I compare the merge result with the
second merge
10 matches
Mail list logo
