Is there any means for people who won't be able to attend the video
call to (a) review the discussion, and (b) provide their own feedback?
Paul
On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 05:22, Jelle Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, the typing community is considering a proposal to add new syntax
> to support gene
On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 23:25, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> This was just discussed on Discord. The upstream issue is
> https://github.com/dependabot/dependabot-core/issues/2804
Thanks! I'm only rarely on Discord, so I missed that :-)
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 14:19 Paul Moore wr
I have a cpython fork on my github account - every so often,
dependabot kicks in and runs a whole load of actions, which I don't
need. I'm not sure how I can switch these off, short of removing the
.github directory (which would mean my fork has diverged from
upstream, which I'm therefore reluctant
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 19:53, Brett Cannon wrote:
> This doesn't affect provisional PEPs, only modules; provisional PEP
> acceptances are covered under a different PEP (probably PEP 1).
Rats :-)
Paul
___
python-committers mailing list -- python-commi
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 23:27, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Update PEP 2 to say a PEP is necessary to add a module to the stdlib
> Update PEP 4 to say that a PEP is necessary to deprecate/remove a module
> Mark PEP 411 as obsolete and thus dropping the idea of provisional modules
These all seem reasonab
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 17:09, Marc-Andre Lemburg wrote:
>
> On 11.03.2022 17:42, Zachary Ware wrote:
> >
> > - Only code which either supports a higher-tier platform or is a general
> > improvement may be checked in.
>
> My understanding of that sentence is: PRs which target platforms
> not liste
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 06:15, Julien Palard via python-committers
wrote:
>
> I do use a Yubikey too.
I'm not particularly bothered by the debate over 2FA (I have a 2FA app
on my phone that I use and that's sufficient) but I'd like to offer a
counter argument to everyone saying Yubikeys are a stra
On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 15:14, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>
> Le 18/05/2021 à 15:36, Senthil Kumaran a écrit :
> > Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >>> I'll ask the question again: what are the « evolving needs » that are
> >> not addressed by Zulip, but would be addressed by *another* chat system?
> >
> > I d
On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 11:32, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> There's also the social dimension that is simply not present in email -- for
> good reason. There are many messages I have not sent simply because it's
> email, so it's more effort and carries much more weight.
Agreed. An example of somethi
On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 16:58, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> > I see lots of vague complaining and no concrete argument.
>
> Really? I don't see that way. So far, I see that few others find
> settling upon chat solution will be useful for core-dev too.
I see a general interest in *having* some sort of
On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 03:14, Dong-hee Na wrote:
>
> Believe it or not, there are people who are not familiar with the IRC culture.
> And those people are who enter the opensource culture after the 2010s.
> That period coincides with the growth of GitHub.
>
> So I'm also a supporter of new communi
On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 21:18, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 08:53:13PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> > The problem with this, I think, is that my choice would be
> >
> > * Whichever one people actually used
>
> That's self-referencing, an
On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 19:51, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 11:07:12AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > You could launch a poll on discuss.python.org and see if there's a clear
> > winner.
>
> Yes, after hearing some opinions, I plan to do that. Right now, I guess
> the choice
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 12:24, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> Isn't that an educational problem ? Adjusting reporting of
> warnings isn't all that hard:
>
> https://docs.python.org/3/library/warnings.html#the-warnings-filter
>
> Perhaps it's just a usability issue. We could have venvs help
> us a bit wit
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 12:05, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Perhaps we should reconsider making deprecation warnings only
> visible by explicitly enabling them and instead make them visible
> by default.
>
> This would create more noise for users, but for the better, since
> planned changes then become
I'm pretty sure I saw an email from Steven D'Aprano on this list recently.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 15:44, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> I've sent a reminder to these core devs:
>
> Alexandre Vassalotti
> Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
> Armin Ronacher
> David Wolever
> Eli Bendersky
>
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 15:38, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Congratulations Hai Shi!
Congratulations Hai Shi, and thanks for all the work you've been doing!
Paul
___
python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email
The performance figures in the Python 3.9 "What's New" (here -
https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.9.html#optimizations) did look
oddly like a lot of things went slower, to me. I assumed I'd misread
the figures, and moved on, but maybe I was wrong to do so...
Paul
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 14:17, P
Welcome, Kyle!
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 01:47, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> And just in time for the language summit! :)
> ___
> python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 21:07, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
>
> > As it turns out I was removed from the list of voters by the above
> > script, without being asked, and would like to be added back again.
>
> I support this, and I hope this can be rectified for this election period
> itself.
+1 from me
I have to say that I agree with Raymond here. I don't think that an
issue tracker is a good way to collect this sort of feedback. To be
honest, I don't feel that there's going to be much scope to address
the sorts of concerns being raised here, so I'm not clear how much
value there will be in the d
I sent my info to br...@python.org, which was the sender address on
the original email I got.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 05:01, wrote:
>
> Where you I send the info? I'm not sure which email address you're using.
>
> Raymond
> ___
> python-committers mailin
Welcome, Abhilash! Great to have you on board :-)
Paul
(BTW, I didn't see an announcement of the closing of the vote and the
final result on Discourse - did it get announced there?)
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 23:03, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> Congratulations and welcome Abhilash! Thanks Brett for sett
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 18:53, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > > Did not commit/author beyond a 3 month time span from first
> > > commit/authorship to last commit/authorship and their last commit
> > > was more than two years ago (helps cover people we don't have good
> > > records for in terms of sprints
Congratulations, and welcome Paul!
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 20:12, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> Assuming I didn't mess up, Paul should be set up appropriately at this point.
> ___
> python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
> To unsubscrib
On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 19:10, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> How can I restart a failed build on Azure?
> https://dev.azure.com/Python/cpython/_build/results?buildId=43161&view=logs&j=18d1a34d-6940-5fc1-f55b-405e2fba32b1
You can close and reopen the PR, but that restarts every build. I
thin
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 15:56, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
> Le mer. 15 mai 2019 à 11:40, Paul Moore a écrit :
> > Also, is there an archive of the discussions anywhere? The PEP says
> > discussions happened on Zulip, but I don't follow that and I don'
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 09:51, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:11:14 -0700
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> > As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the
> > rest of the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
>
> For future reference, is it possible to p
Welcome, Stefan, nice to have you with us :-)
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 06:53, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> Thanks, everyone, for bringing me in!
>
> I don't have much to add to what was written here about myself recently,
> except that I'm happy to join, and flattered by the result of the vote. I'm
> cu
Welcome!
On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 21:07, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>
> Welcome Stefan and Stéphane !
>
>
> Le 08/04/2019 à 22:04, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> >
> >
> > ___
> > python-committers mailing list
> > python-committers@python.org
> > https://mail.pyt
Congratulations, Paul, and welcome. Glad to have your help!
Paul
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 17:04, Carol Willing wrote:
>
> Welcome Paul :D
>
> Looking forward to working with you more.
>
> > On Feb 14, 2019, at 8:27 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Paul Ganssle just asked me to close a
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 20:50, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Apparently you're saying that just because you can't/don't want to use a
> more appropriate tool, other people shouldn't be able too. That sounds
> ridiculous to me. Use an inferior tool if you want, but don't force
> other people to.
That;'
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 19:56, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> On 13Feb2019 1112, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:55 AM Paul Moore > <mailto:p.f.mo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 22:00, Antoine
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 22:00, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Here is a 161-message Discourse thread (at the time of this writing):
> https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-517-backend-bootstrapping/789
As someone directly involved in that discussion, with a strong need to
understand all of the points being ma
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 12:38, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On Victor's original question, the Discourse experiment has been successful
> enough that I don't see a problem with the committers mailing list going
> essentially "announce only". I agree with Barry that going further than that
> would req
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Ernest W. Durbin III wrote:
> I can open a PR to 8100 with detailed results if no objections are heard.
+1
Paul
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytho
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 16:32, Steve Dower wrote:
> FWIW, I'm thinking about withdrawing it because PEP 8016 captures my
> highest priorities (specifically, core developers don't have a monopoly
> on decision-making skills, and don't apply unnecessary constraints on
> whoever leads in this PEP). Th
nally, I'm not that
worried as that wasn't one of my preferred proposals, but I do think
that if you have created a proposal, you have a certain level of
responsibility to the people who liked it to give them information on
what you view as the "migration path" from what they voted fo
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 18:55, Brett Cannon wrote:
> OK, so it seems you're unhappy that you only have a day to vote since you
> can't change your vote ...
[...]
> ... but then you don't like that people can vote over two weeks because you
> don't want discussions to occur while people can vote t
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 12:55, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> I find it rather unusual that we are pushed to vote on PEPs
> which will just have been finished in writing tonight.
>
> Shouldn't people who were not involved in the individual creation
> processes at least get two weeks to review the final w
I'm going to quote multiple people here and respond to various
comments at once. It's way harder doing so than it would have been in
Discourse, so I'm sort of proving that for myself (but having said
that, I was already aware of, and fine with, the idea that Discourse
does stuff like this better -
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> I'd like to spend some time reviewing the proposals and understanding
>> the options we're being asked to vote on, but I do *not* want to waste
>> time reviewing proposals that are still in flux. How do I know when I
>> can do that?
>
> I think t
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Anyhow, this is probably a bit off-topic again.
>
> Yes, but that's a drawback to mailing lists in my opinion and it's hard to
> avoid. :)
I did consider what I would have done on Discourse, and came to the
conclusion that I would have done ex
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 15:25, Steve Dower wrote:
> For example, right now, I'm leaning towards 8013, 8010, 8016, 8011,
> 8012, 8015, 8014. But since some are still in flux (particularly 8016),
> that could change. And my core rationale is basically how likely we are
> to be able to fill the roles c
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 00:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> But let's be fair to those who have put in the effort to make this work
> so far. "Disenfranchisement" is not even close to a fair criticism.
Frankly, I'm tired of being picked up on specifics of the wording I
used. I felt that "disenfranchise
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 02:37, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> According to the PEP 8001: "The vote will happen in a 2-week-long
> window from November 16 2018 to November 30 (Anywhere-on-Earth)." It's
> now in less than two weeks.
>
> I see that the PEP 8001 is still being updated (voting method). Should
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 12:06, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
> > On Sep 29, 2018, at 12:02, Paul Moore wrote:
> >
> > Isn't that just a restart of the conversation that happened on this
> > list not too long ago (prompted by a question from MAL, IIRC) but
> > missing
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 11:44, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2018, at 11:24, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> Are committers *not* active in the past two
> releases not considered? Your figures seem biased. (Was I part of that
> 30? I committed some changes in the last 2 rele
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 11:29, Donald Stufft wrote:
> Discourse is perfectly searchable using Google in exactly the same way as
> Mailman archives.
Cool.
> It also has built in search.
Somewhat less relevant - I assumed that but "most people" won't use
that, they'll use Google.
Paul
___
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 11:04, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:53 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > This is exactly the kind of arbitrary decision making by an insufficiently
> > representative group that led to us banning making any binding decisions at
> > language summits: their
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 10:24, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> > 29.09.18 03:45, Łukasz Langa пише:
> >>>
> >>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 23:04, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you use NNTP? Like with IRC, you won't find the next generation of c
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 09:57, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On Sat., 29 Sep. 2018, 11:19 am Barry Warsaw, wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2018, at 17:45, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>>
>> > Do you use NNTP? Like with IRC, you won't find the next generation of core
>> > developers on it. And no, there is no support f
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 09:23, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 2018, at 08:50, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> >
> > I hope it does, since otherwise python-committers is not only moving
> > to discourse, but also losing its functionality as forum for
> > core developers. We'd just have another pytho
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 18:15, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:28 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
> [..]
> >> What is the status of Brett's UNIX Python launcher "py" by the way?
> >
> >
> > You can see the current TODO list at
> > https://crates.io/crates/python-launcher . Basically I
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 20:32, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>
> Le 25/09/2018 à 21:30, Yury Selivanov a écrit :
> > What's the current plan for what version of Python we release after 3.9?
> >
> > The reason I'm asking this is because I frequently need to refer to
> > *that version* of Python in the doc
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 15:28, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
>
> My proposal is taking into consideration The PSF's mission and diversity
> statement. I will not remove the diversity clause from PEP 8011.
>
> To save us all trouble of discussing this particular issue, for those of you
> who disagree com
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 13:30, Donald Stufft wrote:
> So part of being and open and welcoming community, is knowing and
> understanding that words, images, etc like that can make people feel like
> we’re either a group that will directly engage in those attacks that have
> been associated with t
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 13:26, Carol Willing wrote:
> Context is important. I wonder though if the author's intent was constructive
> comment...
I'm sure it wasn't. But in context, it was a statement made in a
thread that had long previously become nothing more than
non-constructive invective. Ca
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 12:38, Carol Willing wrote:
> Much of the discussion here has focused on the use of a few words.
>
> IMHO, discussing violence, assault, and implying that its okay to accept and
> trivialize this violence do not belong in posts about the Python language.
>
> From the origi
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 21:37, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>
> Apparently it's this one:
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2018-September/053482.html
>
> By the way, regardless of this single case, I would like people to think
> of the broader issue we're having. It's more than a single
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 20:29, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> At the developer sprints this week, we collectively decided to grant core
> committer status to Emily and Lisa.
>
> Please join me in welcoming them to the team.
Congratulations and welcome, Emily and Lisa!
Paul
_
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 08:50, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Indeed. A hard deadline concentrates the mind. It doesn't need to be
> tomorrow, I think your choosen dates are a great balance, neither too
> quick nor too drawn out.
But it also encourages people (particularly people with limited free
time)
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 01:58, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:29 PM Mariatta Wijaya
> wrote:
> [..]
> > Please don't misunderstand my wanting to set up a deadlines and process as
> > wanting to rush things.
>
> Absolutely, I understand, I didn't want to imply that "[name] is
>
On 20 July 2018 at 12:57, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hum. Let me try to explain my point differently. Currently, some
> people don't read PEPs just because at the end, only the single BDFL
> vote counts. What's the point of spending hours (if not days) on
> reading a long PEP and the long discussion
On 19 July 2018 at 20:44, Brett Cannon wrote:
> But the amount of discussion can be unbounded (considering people write PhD
> theses on governance models and voting systems we could talk about this
> stuff forever ;), so putting a schedule in place to help focus the
> discussions can be beneficial
On 19 July 2018 at 08:33, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Le 19/07/2018 à 04:36, Nathaniel Smith a écrit :
>> [tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard
>> to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate
>> about the ground rules then that defeats the pur
I also agree 100% with Barry's proposal. I think he's absolutely right
that one of the important features of Python (both the language and
the community) is the single focus and vision of the BDFL, and reading
Barry's mail crystallised for me the unease I felt about the proposals
around a Council,
On 14 July 2018 at 08:05, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> So stealing Brett's excellent suggestion of "Design Steward" as a
> BDFL-independent term for the current BDFL-Delegate role, a potential
> PEP 1 amendment for the appointment process would be:
I've only got one peripheral point to make here, but ca
On 12 July 2018 at 15:57, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But I'm basically giving myself a permanent vacation from being BDFL, and you
> all will be on your own.
I just want to echo everyone else's sentiments and say thank you for
all the work you've done, and for the example you've set to all of us.
On 18 June 2018 at 20:41, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 18.06.2018 21:07, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Hm, unless I misunderstood, MAL's
>>
>>> Being a core developer of Python is a status
>>
>> suggests that core devs might want to keep this status since it confers
>> "status" on their person (it looks
On 18 May 2018 at 23:25, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Discussing PEPs on python-dev and python-ideas is clearly not scalable any
> more. (Even python-committers probably doesn't scale too well. :-)
It's not scalable, certainly. But it's still (IMO) fine for all but
the larger PEPs - the trick is spo
+1 from me :-)
On 14 May 2018 at 21:41, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> Dr. Mark Shannon contributed the "key sharing dictionary" to Python, writing
> both the PEP and the implementation. This shipped in Python 3.3 and was
> listed as one of the top features of that release as according to the
> "Wh
FWIW, -1 from me. At least with the PEP as it stands.
Paul
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
On 2 May 2018 at 10:49, Victor Stinner wrote:
> I would like to start a poll on Chris Angelico's PEP 572 "Assignment
> Expressions", restricted to Python core developers, to prepare the
> talk at the Language Summit:
Do we really need this spilling over into yet another mailing list?
Paul
___
On 21 March 2018 at 14:02, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
> Some steps were written here:
> https://devguide.python.org/gitbootcamp/#accepting-and-merging-a-pull-request
>
> And the section right after explains the backport.
Thanks Mariatta - that's exactly what I was looking for.
> I guess it needs reo
On 21 March 2018 at 12:42, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 21 March 2018 at 06:58, Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> Cheryl Sabella kindly migrated a patch I'd put on bpo some time ago
>> but forgotten about onto github. The PR (#6158) is ready to go (I
>> think
Hi,
Cheryl Sabella kindly migrated a patch I'd put on bpo some time ago
but forgotten about onto github. The PR (#6158) is ready to go (I
think) but this is the first time since the migration to github that
I've done a merge, and I'm not quite sure what the workflow is :-( I
didn't see much in the
+1 from me also. He's been involved in a lot of distutils-sig stuff as
well, and his contributions have always been well thought out and
useful.
Paul
On 24 January 2018 at 23:23, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to propose granting commit privileges to Nathaniel J. Smith.
> He's interested
On 12 December 2017 at 13:07, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> I'm with David on this one. 2FA is good for admin accounts, but
> doesn't add much protection for regular committers. Think of what
> you're trying to protect against: git checkins are all audited and
> can easily be undone.
Indeed. I'd rather
On 11 December 2017 at 20:15, Julien Palard via python-committers
wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou :
>> A random piece of paper in my wallet may not have an extremely long
>> lifetime (paper is fragile). And one piece of paper might be ok, but
>> what if I need one for every 2FA-enabled Web site?
>
> It's
On 11 December 2017 at 18:03, Donald Stufft wrote:
> So yea, it’s not as good as 2FA only everywhere, but the specific
> circumstances around these specific credentials makes it a reasonable
> usability trade off to allow them.
Cool. Security is always a usability vs security trade-off, and the
m
On 11 December 2017 at 13:41, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>> On Dec 11, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 December 2017 at 12:29, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 11, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> Um, I use
On 11 December 2017 at 12:29, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> Um, I use https not ssh, as for at least some of the time I'm behind a
> firewall that only allows https, not ssh traffic. (I know, I'm sorry -
> I can probably
On 11 December 2017 at 11:27, Kushal Das wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On 11 December 2017 at 10:16, Kushal Das wrote:
>>> On a related note, we should ask all committers to enable 2FA and then
>>> make the organization to 2FA only on
On 11 December 2017 at 10:16, Kushal Das wrote:
> On a related note, we should ask all committers to enable 2FA and then
> make the organization to 2FA only on github. That is a standard policy of
> many organizations on github.
Before making such a requirement, we should ensure that doing so
doe
On 10 December 2017 at 01:41, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 10 December 2017 at 09:46, R. David Murray wrote:
>> The point is, in Martin's judgement (and I have had no reason to doubt
>> it in the years that have followed) is that it is a far more common
>> problem for newly promoted people to be afra
On 6 October 2017 at 17:58, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 09:09:01 -0700, Mariatta Wijaya
> wrote:
>> The windows team is notified because the PR includes changes to PCBuild/*
>
> If you get a review request that says your review was requested "as a
> code owner", then it was an a
On 6 October 2017 at 17:09, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
> The windows team is notified because the PR includes changes to PCBuild/*
Ah cool. That explains it then - I hadn't spotted that (and didn't think of it).
Thanks Mariatta
Paul
___
python-committers
suspicion that there might be a Windows element - but without some
guidance, I'm not sure where to look.
Paul
On 6 October 2017 at 16:38, Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> I'm seeing a lot of review requests from github, asking for review
I'm seeing a lot of review requests from github, asking for reviews
from the Windows team. Many of the PRs don't as far as I can see have
much Windows-specific about them. It doesn't bother me too much (I
just ignore ones I don't have anything to say on) but I thought the
idea of having the teams w
On 4 October 2017 at 17:58, Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2017-09-22 18:48 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
>>> * Long term commitement. (...)
>>
>> Unfortunately we can't evaluate that in advance. Even the person being
>> promoted often does not known whether they'll still be there in 5 or 10
>> years. Hop
I've been trying out PyCharm recently, and looking through the
archives here I see that some time back JetBrains provided us with a
free open source license. Is that still running? And if so, how do I
go about getting a copy?
Thanks,
Paul
___
python-comm
olders, that’ll be it. (Though I haven’t noticed any
>> similar increase, so it may be something else.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Feel free to remove yourself from the team if it looks like that’ll help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Top-posted from my Windows phone
>>
>
I've just recently (within the last week I guess) started getting a
large number of additional mails from github. For example, I'm getting
notifications on https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/3066 which I
haven't commented on or been mentioned in, nor am I nosy on the
underlying bug.
What's cha
On 29 July 2017 at 14:13, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> To be honest, the read-only=HTTPS & read/write=SSH split is likely a
> Linux+macOS-ism, where we can do "ssh-add" once, and then never have
> to worry about explicitly authenticating again until we reboot our
> client machine. As Inada-san notes, the
On 28 July 2017 at 23:30, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
>> 1. Section 32.2 in the Git bootcamp section - is there any reason to
>> use git@github URLs for the clones? I normally always use
>> https://github.com URLs, as they work with my proxy at work.
>
>
> I don't have any explanation other than Git bo
I'm just looking at doing some work for the first time under the new
workflow. Most things look fine - I'm familiar with git/github, so
there's nothing startling in there, but I do have a few small
questions:
1. Section 32.2 in the Git bootcamp section - is there any reason to
use git@github URLs
On 18 July 2017 at 20:59, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I went ahead and clicked buttons. :) I set Python core as users and release
> managers as admins (on top of Zach and me already being admins).
Cool - when I log in now I have "python" as an option. I can't restart
a build, but that's as expected - a
BTW, the docs for all this are at
https://www.appveyor.com/docs/team-setup/#github-integration although
I found them a bit hard to follow, personally.
Paul
On 18 July 2017 at 19:15, Paul Moore wrote:
> That's the one. If you select the github team you want (for PyPA I set
> up a
That's the one. If you select the github team you want (for PyPA I set
up an "Appveyor Admins" team) and choose the Administrator role. That
may well be all you need to do - I don't recall if you need to do
anything on the github side.
Once you do that, people in the relevant github group, when lo
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
