[python-committers] Re: Requiring PEPs to add/remove modules in the stdlib (and dropping the concept of "provisional")

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 04:26:57PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: >1. Update PEP 2 to say a PEP is necessary to add a module to the stdlib >2. Update PEP 4 to say that a PEP is necessary to deprecate/remove a >module Does that include modules flagged as private? E.g. the public

[python-committers] Re: [Python-Dev] Re: Resignation from Stefan Krah

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:17:33AM +0100, Steve Holden wrote: > Full marks to the SC for transparency. That's a healthy sign that the > community acknowledges its disciplinary processes must also be open to > scrutiny, and rather better than dealing with matters in a Star Council. The SC didn't

[python-committers] Re: PEP 581/588 RFC: Collecting feedback about GitHub Issues

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:17:48AM +0100, Benjamin Peterson wrote: [Steven] > > Having said that, the "Filters" feature does seem to do the trick. I > > just tried it on a project I picked at random: > > > > https://github.com/sorccu/cufon/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen > > > > and it seems

[python-committers] Re: PEP 581/588 RFC: Collecting feedback about GitHub Issues

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 09:49:00AM +0100, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 06:54, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > Another essential bit of tooling for the migration: > > > > * Before filing a bug report or feature request, we ask people to > > search to see if there is

Re: [python-committers] Can we choose between mailing list and discuss.python.org?

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:13:35AM +0100, Victor Stinner wrote: > Can the mailing list admin please move this sub-discussion about > thread vs flat into a new thread? I explicitly asked to please not > discuss advantages and disadvantages of mailing list vs Discourse > here: Sadly, when you start

Re: [python-committers] [Steering-council] Re: Can we choose between mailing list and discuss.python.org?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:38:32PM +1000, 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 >

Re: [python-committers] How do you find Discourse so far?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 06:00:01PM +0100, Łukasz Langa wrote: > Here's a poll: > https://discuss.python.org/t/how-do-you-find-discourse-so-far/429 In the poll, you say: "I think we’ve had enough exposure now for you to have an informed opinion on the tool." How many core devs have signed up

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:55:14AM +, Paul Moore wrote: [...] > Currently, I feel like my only option is to abstain and hope - I don't > have the time (or knowledge) to review, understand and assess the > proposals well enough to make an informed vote, but I have no way of > assessing the

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 01:24:46PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote: > Huh, I found the experience exactly the opposite. I was just remarking > last night how glad I was that the discussion happened in discourse > instead of on the mailing list, because of how poorly I felt the > discussion would

Re: [python-committers] If you care about the voting method, please vote ; -)

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:57:02PM +0100, Victor Stinner wrote: > Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 23:49, Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > > How many people voted? Out of what (approximate) pool of potential > > voters? > > 25 voters on 65 core developers who have an account on discus

Re: [python-committers] If you care about the voting method, please vote ; -)

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 03:20:43PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: > FYI I just updated PEP 8001 with the result of the poll which very clearly > favoured the Condorcet method for winner selection. That was quick. It would have been nice if there had been some sort of obvious announcement of the

Re: [python-committers] Vote on governance will happen between Nov 16 - Nov 30

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:05:58AM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > The rangevoting site has a great deal of info about all sorts of voting > systems. Over a decade ago, Ka-Ping Yee (who used to be very active in > Python development) ran some _visual_ voting simulations on 5 popular > systems, which

Re: [python-committers] python-committers is dead, long live discuss.python.org

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:03:59AM +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > I mentioned something similar on Discourse, but I'm going to add a > comment here. This sort of dismissal of the validity of other people's > long-established workflows is not very helpful. [snip] Thank you Paul. Discourse may or may

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 09:22:44AM +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > 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 > >

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 05:29:00PM -0700, Mariatta Wijaya wrote: > Please don't misunderstand my wanting to set up a deadlines and process as > wanting to rush things. > I'm open to extend the dates, and even wait another year if we need to. Please no. Leaving things in limbo for a handful of

Re: [python-committers] And Now for Something Completely Different

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 09:59:39AM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 20/07/2018 à 01:47, Victor Stinner a écrit : > > > > What is the image sent to contributors if we create a subgroup inside > > core developpers called "council"? What if we elect a new BDFL *for > > life*? Does it mean that

Re: [python-committers] And Now for Something Completely Different

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:37:03AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Paul Moore's message of 2018-07-20 13:14:49 +0100: [...] > > In contrast, I would imagine that people would continue to discuss > > PEPs in exactly the same way that they currently do, so the result > > would be that

Re: [python-committers] Transfer of power

I'm sure I will have more (public) comments later, but for now I'd like to limit myself to one thing: On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:41:52AM -0600, Eric Snow wrote: > In the short term we could appoint a *temporary* triumvirate to fill > in as BDFL (with the intent to re-assess the situation in

Re: [python-committers] number of active core devs [was: Comments on moving issues to GitHub]

On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 12:44:55PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: > I will admit that I think we lost some core devs who had zero exposure to > GitHub prior to switching and never found the motivation to ramp up on the > new workflow. *raises hand* I'm one of them. Not that I was a prolific core

Re: [python-committers] A different way to focus discussions

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:58:39PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > On May 22, 2018, at 5:50 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > > > > IMHO the discussions on the PEP 572 became a mess because nobody > > wanted to moderate the discussion. I asked on python-committers how to > >

Re: [python-committers] A different way to focus discussions

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 03:25:37PM -0700, 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. :-) > > I wonder if it would make sense to require that for each PEP a new GitHub >

Re: [python-committers] Poll: Do you like the PEP 572 Assignment Expressions?

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:49:36AM +0200, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > 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: With the changes suggested by Guido, +1 (I've track

Re: [python-committers] Statistics: growth of core dev number vs growth of the code size/complexity

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 12:17:04AM +0100, Victor Stinner wrote: > If you look at the size of the source code, it's still growing > constanly since 1990: > https://www.openhub.net/p/python/ > > 2007: around 783k lines > 2010: around 683k lines What happened between 2007 and 2010 that the source

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 05:44:46PM +, Brett Cannon wrote: > (And just so I can claim I stated this publicly at some point; our Roundup > installation I think runs on Python 2.6 and Roundup itself has not been > ported to Python 3, so I don't know what we want to do if Roundup doesn't > make

Re: [python-committers] Proposal for procedures regarding CoC actions

On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 09:39:36PM -0400, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > Luckily, in the Python community, episodes that require repressive actions > are rare enough that they can be dealt on a case by case basis without > causing much distraction. There is no need to over-formalize the process.

Re: [python-committers] Failed to build select

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 01:41:18PM +0300, Berker Peksağ wrote: > > /home/steve/python/python-dev/cpython/Modules/selectmodule.c: In function > > ‘PyInit_select’: > > /home/steve/python/python-dev/cpython/Modules/selectmodule.c:2484: error: > > ‘EPOLLRDHUP’ undeclared (first use in this

Re: [python-committers] Failed to build select

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 12:17:21AM -0400, Ned Deily wrote: > On Aug 7, 2016, at 23:51, Senthil Kumaran <sent...@uthcode.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > >> > >> Is it just me? Any sugg

[python-committers] Failed to build select

Hi, I've just re-built the latest Python 3.6 from the repo using this: PYTHONHOME=/usr/local ./configure --with-pydebug && make -s -j2 and I'm getting: Failed to build these modules: select which means I can't run the test suite: [steve@ando cpython]$ ./python -m test -j3 Traceback (most

Re: [python-committers] Is it just me or is the tip broken at the moment?

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 11:15:29AM -0500, Zachary Ware wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > I'm wondering if I've broken something at my end, or if everyone is > > seeing the same error. > > Works fine for me. Hav

[python-committers] Is it just me or is the tip broken at the moment?

I'm wondering if I've broken something at my end, or if everyone is seeing the same error. [steve@ando cpython]$ hg fetch pulling from ssh://h...@hg.python.org/cpython searching for changes no changes found [steve@ando cpython]$ hg update 0 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0

[python-committers] Guidance on merging(?)

Hi, My hg skills are still fairly basic, and I'm looking for somebody who can mentor me (or at least point me in the right direction) with respect to making the same change across multiple versions of Python. I have just made a one-line change to the 3.6 (default) branch:

Re: [python-committers] 2016 Python Language Summit: Can we get volunteers to talk about pathlib?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:55:14PM +, Brett Cannon wrote: > PEP has first draft done. Giving Koos and Stephen to comment on it before I > post it (I'll give them until Monday). Brett, thanks for this! I've looked at the size of the threads on pathlib and my brain started making "whib whib

Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 03:11:25PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 28 February 2016 at 12:27, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > Nobody *has* to tolerate jerks, especially on an email forum. Just > > filter their emails into the trash. > > This a

Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 07:10:18PM +, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 at 18:33 Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: [...] > > You could have, should > > have, waited a few days before seemingly ramming this policy change in > > behind people's b

Re: [python-committers] Making the PSF CoC apply to core developers

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 05:17:50PM +, Brett Cannon wrote: [...] > After a rather rude email on python-dev I haven't noticed this email. Care to link to it? We should be allowed to see what sort of behaviour is likely to treated as officially unacceptable in the future. I think this is

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:40:52AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Feb 02, 2016, at 03:33 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > > >Changing the major version should be done for incompatible changes, and just > >doing it after 3.9 will probably just create confusion for both users that > >will wonder if it's

Re: [python-committers] Initial Motivations & Affiliations page has been merged

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:08:27PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: [...] > I'll do another pass on that, swapping out the more formal terms (e.g. > "disclose") for more common plain English equivalents (e.g. > "publish"). If there are other particular phrases and words that seem > out of place, please

Re: [python-committers] More explicit Code of Conduct for the issue tracker core mailing lists?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:29:52PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: [...] I think their guidelines align pretty well with the way we try to run the CPython issue tracker and the core mailing lists, but we don't currently spell out those expectations for newcomers (or potential newcomers) as clearly