On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:20:23AM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
> I don't want to keep deferring 3.0 months and months, I prefer to have
> a redesigned schedule now, and stick to it as much as possible, even
> if the 3.0 version is not as robust as we would want.
Another, related policy issue: mu
[when 2 mailing lists are not enough... :-]
> I'm seeing that people are just starting to download and play with 3.0.
> I expect that we'll start getting more feedback on conversion issues
+1 from this direction too. pywin32 has recently started looking seriously
at py3k, and while things are in
2008/10/6 Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
>> 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
>> 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
>> 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
>>
>> Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do we
>> need two more betas?
>
> Yes to both questions.
I agree with you h
I received an e-mail from Alex Handy of SD Times:
>Hi there. I read your article on the maturation of Python, and I'm
>looking for contributors to the Python project. I'd love to talk to
>you on the phone for an SD Times article about the subject. I'd also
>appreciate any other members of the proje
> More specifically, I think 2to3 is shaping up well. pywin32 is taking the
> approach of "port where possible, but keep in py2x syntax and convert at
> 'setup.py' time" and this is working out fairly well
I can't say how glad I am that you say that. It supports lib2to3 being a
proper library, de
[A.M. Kuchling]
Does someone want to talk to them about 3.0? Please let me know
privately and I'll pass along Alex's contact info.
Okay, will send you my info by private email.
Raymond
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My
> suggestion:
>
> 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
> 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
> 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
> 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
>
> Given what still needs to be done, is t
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>> [Barry Warsaw]
>>> So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
>>> My suggestion:
>>> 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
>>> 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
>>> 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
>>> 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
>>> Give
> Do we need the full two weeks between rc's?
If they are just other names for betas, yes. If they are true
release candidates (in the sense of "we really want to release this
as-is unless somebody tells us why this is a really bad idea"), then
no.
> Or is it too much of a pain
> to cut releases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My
suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-Nov-2008 3.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Barry Warsaw]
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 rc 2
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 4
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
I've updated PEP 361 and the Google calendar with this schedule,
except that the PEP says that rc3 and r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I won't be able to cut another release between the 15th and 5th, so
at least that one should be 2 weeks. If we don't need the
additional rc, then we can release early, which would put us just
bef
> > * Better support for 2to3 in distutils (specifically, the support in
> > build_py is stale, plus 'build_scripts' and 'install_data' should
> > convert
> > .py files to py3k syntax.)
>
> Please do create a bug report for that. It sounds like it's easy to
> fix.
Yeah, build_py is fairly easy to
> at such a script, which I promptly stopped looking at as soon as it
> worked
Which is quite obvious really given that:
> # nuke ourselves from argv
> del sys.argv[1]
is removing the wrong value!
Mark
___
python-committers mailing list
python-commit
15 matches
Mail list logo
