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
14 matches
Mail list logo
