On 27 June 2013 10:14, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2013/6/25 Larry Hastings :
>> I'm not questioning the decision--I'm asking, what is the heuristic I can
>> apply in the future to predict whether or not a change will be accepted into
>> the 2.7 branch. My current heuristic ("only bad bug fixes")
2013/6/25 Larry Hastings :
> I'm not questioning the decision--I'm asking, what is the heuristic I can
> apply in the future to predict whether or not a change will be accepted into
> the 2.7 branch. My current heuristic ("only bad bug fixes") seems to be on
> the fritz.
I realize everyone wants
On 26.06.2013 04:10, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> Everything I read in this thread says that 2.7 only gets bug fixes, and even
> at that it has to be a
> pretty bad bug. (Benjamin: "If it's been broken for all of the 2.x series,
> it probably doesn't need
> to be fixed now.") I don't see even
On 06/25/2013 07:10 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
Everything I read in this thread says that 2.7 only gets bug fixes, and even at
that it has to be a pretty bad bug.
(Benjamin: "If it's been broken for all of the 2.x series, it probably doesn't need
to be fixed now.") I don't see even
mild disse
Everything I read in this thread says that 2.7 only gets bug fixes, and
even at that it has to be a pretty bad bug. (Benjamin: "If it's been
broken for all of the 2.x series, it probably doesn't need to be fixed
now.") I don't see even mild dissent; the replies have been strongly
unanimous
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/06/13 22:39, R. David Murray wrote:
> My understanding is that there is an additional category that we
> allow beyond what Barry mentioned: things that add support for
> "stuff" that is analogous to the build enhancements: platform
> changes we
On 23 June 2013 12:56, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2013/6/22 Eli Bendersky :
>> Yes, this makes sense too.
>>
>> In general there seems to be an agreement, so it would be great to document
>> in some place. Many years will pass before we have another "special" release
>> like Python 2.7, so it's wo
2013/6/22 Eli Bendersky :
> Yes, this makes sense too.
>
> In general there seems to be an agreement, so it would be great to document
> in some place. Many years will pass before we have another "special" release
> like Python 2.7, so it's worth spending an extra few minutes to have this
> written
Maybe time it so when we *would* have released a 2.8 (18 months or so after
2.7) is when it goes into critical/security fixes only?
On Jun 22, 2013 11:50 PM, "Eli Bendersky" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Eli Bendersky wrot
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> [1] Well, maybe penultimate, but I wouldn't mind seeing the Mercurial
> equivalent of a wrastlin' match between him and the BDFL. :)
You wouldn't see that this summer though -- I could just tackle him in
the office. :-)
--
--Guido van Ross
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>
> >I may be missing something, but do we have a policy of what we're supposed
> >to commit to the 2.7 branch at this point? I was under the impression that
> >it's only bug fixes, document
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:35:41 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>
> >I may be missing something, but do we have a policy of what we're supposed
> >to commit to the 2.7 branch at this point? I was under the impression that
> >it's only bug fixes, docume
On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>I may be missing something, but do we have a policy of what we're supposed
>to commit to the 2.7 branch at this point? I was under the impression that
>it's only bug fixes, documentation, and maybe tests. But it seems that
>there are developers w
Le samedi 22 juin 2013 à 12:02 -0700, Eli Bendersky a écrit :
> Hello,
>
>
> I may be missing something, but do we have a policy of what we're
> supposed to commit to the 2.7 branch at this point? I was under the
> impression that it's only bug fixes, documentation, and maybe tests.
> But it seem
Hello,
I may be missing something, but do we have a policy of what we're supposed
to commit to the 2.7 branch at this point? I was under the impression that
it's only bug fixes, documentation, and maybe tests. But it seems that
there are developers who see it otherwise.
For example, Raymond's cha
15 matches
Mail list logo
