On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 at 13:58 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) but this is the first time since the migration to github that
> I've done a merge, and I'm not qu
Just to add my vote, I too typically pull in Petr whenever I get pulled
into an extension module import issue since he and Nick know that part of
import way better than I do. :)
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 at 05:14 Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to propose Petr Viktorin as a specialist cor
Over on core-workflow we decided to try out Zulip as a "more
hyper-interactive email" way to communicate (at least that's how Guido
phrased it :) . We have set up https://python.zulipchat.com/ for *just*
Python core development discussion (i.e. this is not for general Python
support). People so far
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 at 11:27 Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 4/22/2018 12:16 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> > miss-islington is an awesome bot! It makes fixing bugs in multiple
> > versions much simpler. You need just accept automatically created
> > backporting PRs.
> >
> > But there is a downside. miss-
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 at 02:59 Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 23.04.18 19:47, Brett Cannon пише:
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 at 11:27 Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> Does github allow repository owners to send email directly to people who
>> have submitted PRs or at least, people with co
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 at 07:41 Victor Stinner wrote:
> Ok, maybe asyncio is not a good candidate to experiment. I know that
> asyncio internals are complex, and asynchronous programming is hard.
>
> Sure, the risk of regression in the Documentation is lower :-) But it
> doesn't mean that we should
On Mon, 14 May 2018 at 14:22 Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
> To help with this, miss-islington will now assign the PR where backport
> had failed to the core dev who merged the original PR.
>
Great feature!
-Brett
>
>
> Mariatta
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:57
You can always close and then open an issue to re-trigger CI. As for Travis
specifically, you should have the proper permissions to forcibly re-run
the builds.
On Mon, 14 May 2018 at 21:50 Eric V. Smith wrote:
> I accidentally checked in some test files, and they got backported to
> 3.7. I push
On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 01:47 Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018, at 15:27, Steve Dower wrote:
> > Thanks Microsoft for the 20 concurrent builds on Windows, macOS and
> Linux :)
>
> That is quite generous! Will it be ongoing?
>
Yes, this is not just for the sprints. This is a con
On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 14:31 Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 15.05.18 14:51, Ned Deily пише:
> > This is it! We are down to THE FINAL WEEK for 3.7.0! Please get your
> > feature fixes, bug fixes, and documentation updates in before
> > 2018-05-21 ~23:59 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12:00). That's about 7 day
On Sun, 20 May 2018 at 10:43 Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 20, 2018, at 10:19, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, the general reaction was that it was definitely worth exploring,
> but that it would be a lot of work and require solutions to a lot of
> problems to make sure people's workflows we
On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 12:07 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Le 22/05/2018 à 20:58, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
> >
> >> Thoughts? (We can dogfood this proposal too, if there's interest. :-)
> >
> > I don't know whether this will help focus rambling PEP discussions. I
> personally don't love the linearity
On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 13:10 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Le 22/05/2018 à 22:06, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 12:07 Antoine Pitrou > <mailto:anto...@python.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 22/05/2018 à 20:58, Barry W
On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 18:07 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> 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
On Tue, 22 May 2018 at 13:52 Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 22, 2018, at 12:44, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > Hm, what's the cost of those extra repos? As long as they have
> consistent names (e.g. pep-1234) they're easy to ignore right? Or does
> GitHub have a quota of repos per org?
>
> I thin
On Thu, 24 May 2018 at 10:45 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Le 24/05/2018 à 18:54, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> >
> > I don't think Zulip works for structured discussion. I also find it
> > slightly less usable than I expected.
> >
> > Why specifically?
On Fri, May 25, 2018, 07:53 Nick Coghlan, wrote:
> On 25 May 2018 at 04:09, Ned Deily wrote:
>
>> On May 24, 2018, at 13:46, Larry Hastings wrote:
>> > On 05/24/2018 10:08 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
>> >> If you (or anyone else) feels strongly enough about it, you should
>> re-open the issue now and
If you create a dev branch that is going to live for less than 24 hours
because you edited some typo in the docs or something through GitHub's UI,
then that's fine. But long-lived dev branches should be done in one's
personal fork. This is for two reasons: one is so that others don't
inadvertently
On Fri, 25 May 2018 at 14:01 Steve Dower wrote:
> On 25May2018 1043, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > (and because people often forget to do `git pull --prune`), and two
> > because it eats up our CI (which is especially precious while we are
> > still on AppVeyor and the turn-ar
On Wed, 30 May 2018 at 10:21 Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> ISTM that opinions vary on what constitutes a "release blocker", and maybe
> empowering only the release managers to make that call would be a good way
> forward--which is what ISTM is wh
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 at 12:47 Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> 2. Better support for core developers in the tracker.
>
>
> Not sure what you mean by "support"? There are only two maintainers of the
> bug tracker, they both are also Python core developers: Brett and Ezio. My
> personal opinion is
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 at 14:58 Ezio Melotti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 at 12:47 Mariatta Wijaya
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> [SNIP]
> >>
> >>> 2. Better supp
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 at 18:08 Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Sounds to me like these are probably just past committers who are no
> longer active for whatever personal reasons, and took no action when we
> moved to GitHub. We basically never remove the commit bit from anyone
> except by request, and I o
Victor noticed that AppVeyor stopped building about 19 hours ago, leading
to it blocking all open PRs. I have gone ahead and switched off requiring
AppVeyor for now, so please pay attention to at least the Windows VSTS
status check to make sure you're not breaking Windows by accident.
_
y ignores VSTS status and so may merge a
> backport even if VSTS Windows fails.
>
> Victor
>
> 2018-06-04 17:02 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
> > Victor noticed that AppVeyor stopped building about 19 hours ago,
> leading to
> > it blocking all open PRs. I have gone ahead
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 at 20:30 Ned Deily wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2018, at 22:30, Steve Dower wrote:
> > We probably have enough data on the VSTS builds by now to see whether
> they are comparable/faster than AppVeyor. Obviously the idea of doing that
> work was to be able to migrate builds if it made se
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 at 13:23 Terry Reedy wrote:
> When we used hg, core dev committers could actually commit to the
> repository when they judged it appropriate. When we moved to github,
> Brett, with whoever's approval,
Since this seems very much directed at me, I should mention any authority
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 16:11 Carol Willing wrote:
> +1 With Victor's mentoring (1 or 2 months), I believe that it is
> reasonable to promote Pablo to a core developer either now or after 3
> months of coaching.
>
> I would also like to see Cheryl Sabella who has been very active on the
> bug trac
I just wanted to say I agree with everything Eric said, for +1 from me.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 14:34 Eric Snow, wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:16 AM Victor Stinner
> wrote:
> > I propose to promote Pablo Salingo Salgado as a core developer and so
> > open a vote during one week. If there is
We could call them "dormant".
And I obviously support culling our membership list for the exact reasons
Victor listed (especially since I was planning to do this at some point
anyway :) .
My only question is whether we care about leaving people on b.p.o who have
gone dormant with triage privileg
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 11:17 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Le 14/06/2018 à 04:30, Terry Reedy a écrit :
> > On 6/13/2018 7:03 PM, Carol Willing wrote:
> >> +1 With Victor's mentoring (1 or 2 months), I believe that it is
> >> reasonable to promote Pablo to a core developer either now or after 3
> >>
`meta bug tracker <http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/>`_ for
> bugs
> of bugs.python.org itself (not for Python bugs). Roundup is going to be
> deployed in a Docker container on OpenShift. Maintainers:
> Ezio Melotti, Brett Cannon, Maciej Szulik.
>
I'm no
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 06:43 Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 18 June 2018 at 18:07, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> > Overall, I think that removing repo or bpo permissions should be
> > kept separate from the status itself. It would probably be wise
> > to send around reminders to all core devs who have access
___
>
> ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::
>
>eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
> D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
>Reg
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 17:56 Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'd do it as follows. This basically makes withdrawal voluntary unless
> they don't respond at all.
>
> 1. Make a list of people who've not shown any sign of activity (on the
> b.p.o. or GitHub, as reviewer or committer) for at least one year
epos
and then reach out to those people.
-Brett
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:51 PM Ethan Furman wrote:
>
>> On 06/19/2018 11:17 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 17:56 Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> >> I'd do it as follows. This basi
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 at 10:31 Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 07/11/2018 09:25 AM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
>
> > Sorry to bring up this old topic.
> >
> > I'm trying to decide how to handle discussions for PEP 581, and I'm open
> to try out new things :)
> > Are we all still content with posting to python
I just renamed the stream so there's now just a single #. :)
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 at 11:22 Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
>
> For permalink in zulip, the link from "Copy link to conversation" seems to
> be sufficient.
> I've created a stream (
> https://python.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/130206-.23pep58
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 07:58 Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Now that PEP 572 is done, I don't ever want to have to fight so hard for a
> PEP and find that so many people despise my decisions.
>
> I would like to remove myself entirely from the decision process. I'll
> still be there for a while as an
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 10:29 Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:58 PM Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'd like to point out that the N-virate idea doesn't handle a key issue:
> > once you have a N-virate, how do you evolve its composition according to
> > the implication and
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 10:42 Eric Snow wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:55 AM Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, Guido. This is a sad day for me personally; I really hoped
> > you'd lead Python for a few more years. On the other hand, Python is
> > in good hands, you've built a larg
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 10:13 Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
> Guido,
>
> Thank you for all you've done for Python. It is well deserved break.
>
> I'm sad, but I like to see this as an opportunity to further improve
> Python and this community.
>
> My first instinct is to suggest: instead of one successor
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 11:02 Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:50 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
> [..]
> >> One way would be to re-elect them every 5 or so years. Essentially,
> >> an N-virate is a dictator-like entity for a few years.
> >
> >
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 11:28 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Le 12/07/2018 à 20:22, Doug Hellmann a écrit :
> > Excerpts from Brett Cannon's message of 2018-07-12 11:11:49 -0700:
> >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 11:02 Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> IOW I don't see anyone (or some group of 3) who
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 11:53 Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 07:57, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > I would like to remove myself entirely from the decision process. I'll
> still be there for a while as an ordinary core dev, and I'll still be
> available to mentor people -- possibly mo
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 10:42 Eric Snow wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:55 AM Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, Guido. This is a sad day for me personally; I really hoped
> > you'd lead Python for a few more years. On the other hand, Python is
> > in good hands, you've built a larg
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 04:31 Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:
> > I'm +1 to an Informational PEP around the state of the art in project
> governance.
>
> I think this is a great idea. There's a lot of experience out there on
> different governance mod
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 03:44 Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2018-07-12 19:12 GMT+02:00 Mariatta Wijaya :
> > What is the role of the successor(s)? Do we assume "whatever Guido did",
> or
> > is this an opportunity to come up with a new process?
> >
> > One useful resource is Vicky Brasseur's tal
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 at 00:16 Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 2018, at 7:54 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
> >
> > If there are 3 Elders [snip]
>
>
> It looks like the number 3 is popular in this context. What makes it so
> attractive?
>
I think because it's small enough to be manageable and have co
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 17:11 Carol Willing, wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2018, at 11:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 03:44 Victor Stinner wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2018-07-12 19:12 GMT+02:00 Mariatta Wijaya :
>>
>>
>> * Diversity. Last ye
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 13:14 Neil Schemenauer,
wrote:
> On 2018-07-13, Ethan Furman wrote:
> > I stopped reading the PEP 572 threads once it was painfully
> > obvious that almost all new replies were just saying the same
> > things over and over and over...
>
> Perhaps this can be seen as a kind o
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 15:56 Brett Cannon, wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 17:11 Carol Willing, wrote:
>
>> On Jul 13, 2018, at 11:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 03:44 Victor Stinner wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>&
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 13:01 Thomas Wouters, wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:07 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
>> [..]
>> >> Ideally Guido would accept the PEP but I'm not sure if he is willing
>
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 at 11:37 Tim Peters wrote:
> [Tim]
>
>> > If there are 3 Elders [snip]
>>
>
> [Łukasz Langa]
>
> It looks like the number 3 is popular in this context. What makes it so
>> attractive?
>>
>
> Likely because it was the first specific non-insane number someone
> mentioned. It he
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 00:17 Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
> > [Chris Jerdonek]
> >>
> >> I don’t think we should assume that a stalemate would be okay in all
> >> cases. There may be cases in which a decision has to be made (e.g. if
> >> nothing cha
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 at 19:38 Tim Peters wrote:
> [Tim]
>
>> If they tied, that's fine too. Ties favor the status quo (same as if the
>>> proposed change had been rejected). For that reason, I'm not even wedded
>>> to an odd number.
>>>
>>
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 15:21 Jack Jansen wrote:
>
>
> On 16-Jul-2018, at 04:38 , Tim Peters wrote:
>
> Guido's most visible (well, to us committers) BDFL role has been in
> "yes/no", "go/nogo" language/library design questions, which don't even
> overlap with the PSF's proper concerns.
>
> But
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 17:02 Tim Peters, wrote:
> [Tim]
>
>> Guido's most visible (well, to us committers) BDFL role has been in
>> "yes/no", "go/nogo" language/library design questions, which don't even
>> overlap with the PSF's proper concerns.
>>
>> But I'm not sure it's fully appreciated just
[starting a new thread]
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 14:04 Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
> > On Jul 18, 2018, at 1:23 PM, Alex Martelli wrote:
> >
> > Since 1179 (and with a few very minor exceptions in the centuries right
> after then -- none since 1612), the Catholic Church requires a
> super-majority of 2
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 15:46 Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 18, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >>
> >> While I am totally fine with a super-majority of votes for so
-core folks and those who don't have privileges anymore).
> Lastly, I suspect two votes should be separated: (1) what model we adopt
> (BDFL, ruling triumvirate, whatever); (2) the model having been chosen, WHO
> is going to serve (as BDFL, as triumvirate member, and so on)...
>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 18:09 Alex Martelli, wrote:
> Hi Brett,
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:51 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> [can I just say how much I've missed having both you and Tim around,
>> Alex? 😃]
>
>
> Heh, good to hear!-)
>
> Another bit of
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 18:49 Brett Cannon, wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 18:09 Alex Martelli, wrote:
>
>> Hi Brett,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:51 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>>> [can I just say how much I've missed having both you and Ti
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 09:32 Mariatta Wijaya,
wrote:
> There is a de facto moratorium for the time being until a new governance
>> model is chosen. Let's not formalize anything beyond that.
>
>
> I agree.
>
Same here.
-Brett
> Mariatta
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:24 AM Łukasz Langa wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 01:24 Victor Stinner, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2018-07-18 18:11 GMT+02:00 Stefan Krah :
> > Perhaps we could have one again, say for 12 months so we can figure
> things
> > out. Other Python implementations may welcome the moratorium so they can
> > catch up.
>
> Python 3.8 has a ne
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 22:32 Carol Willing, wrote:
> Thanks Ethan for clarifying. Totally cool if that is the case.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:19 PM Ethan Furman wrote:
>
>> On 07/18/2018 09:40 PM, Carol Willing wrote:
>> > I am in favor of a time limit. Yet, October 1 seems a bit too long for
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 11:52 Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Antoine Pitrou's message of 2018-07-19 20:07:41 +0200:
> >
> > Le 19/07/2018 à 20:00, Carol Willing a écrit :
> > > I appreciate and respect the importance of these decisions. The dates
> > > that I suggested, and I am not anchored
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 11:04 Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2018, at 08:41, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >
> > Then we would have to solve our governance problem sooner rather than
> later. But i don't think every Python release has to make a huge splash.
>
> The othe
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 07:51 Nick Coghlan, wrote:
> On 18 July 2018 at 16:42, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
> > I agree a name other than BDFL should be chosen, especially since (as
> > I understand it) Guido is still BDFL but just taking a permanent
> > vacation, and the name implies there should only b
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 14:59 Victor Stinner wrote:
> Please extend the deadline: next week, I will be at EuroPython (I
> don't think that I will have time to sit down and come up with
> something), and I'm (more or less) in holiday the whole month of
> August.
>
The leading proposal of a deadlin
ndividual. Negative comments should no
> longer target an individual but the collective decision. Being a
> public person is not easy, it seems like Guido resigns partially
> because of that pressure. I know that Brett Cannon also suffered of
> negativity of some haters of the Internet
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 15:23 Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2018-07-20 22:42 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
> > The leading proposal of a deadline to get governance model proposals in
> and
> > deciding on a voting procedure is October 1. Do you need more time than
> > that? And if so
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 15:36 Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 08:58 Brett Cannon wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 07:51 Nick Coghlan, wrote:
> >>
> >> Guido was willing to do it for so long because Python was his
> >
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 16:25 Carol Willing wrote:
> Thanks all. I am glad that Victor likes October 1. :-)
>
> So can we formalize the timeline proposed by Mariatta?
>
Fine by me. Everyone who cares to comment seems to agree that Oct 1 is good
and I think the Dec 1 deadline is very reasonable. W
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 17:05 Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2018-07-21 0:58 GMT+02:00 Mariatta Wijaya :
> > Oct 1: Deadline for people to come up with proposals of governance model,
> > candidates, and how to vote
> > Dec 1: Deadline to choose a governance model, (and if possible, we choose
> > the new
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 17:03 Victor Stinner, wrote:
> 2018-07-20 18:32 GMT+02:00 Steven D'Aprano :
> > What happens when two trusted experts disagree and the voters don't have
> > the expertise to tell which one is correct?
>
> In my proposal, if no consensus can be found, the vote fails to reach
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 01:11 Antoine Pitrou, wrote:
>
> Le 20/07/2018 à 23:14, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> >
> > Steve pointed out in his reply about how this might increase load as
> > people will have to start trying to get people on side to vote the way
> > they wan
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 at 07:46 Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 21 July 2018 at 04:30, Donald Stufft wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 19, 2018, at 7:47 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> >
> > It seems that the main question for a new governance is how to take a
> > decision on PEPs (accept or reject them with some varian
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 at 16:51 Victor Stinner wrote:
> Brett:
> > This will also make it harder to become a core developer. In the past we
> > have been willing to give people commit privileges for showing they know
> how
> > to code to our standards, make decisions when it came to PRs, and knew
>
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 at 03:27 Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2018-06-19 19:43 GMT+02:00 Victor Stinner :
> > The result of the vote to to promote Pablo Salingo Salgado as core
> developer
> > after one week is positive: I declare that Pablo is now a core developer,
> > congrats! (...)
> >
> > Giv
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 17:58 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
> rushi
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 00:24 Ronald Oussoren via python-committers <
python-committers@python.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On 2 Aug 2018, at 01:06, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:44 PM Mariatta Wijaya
> > wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Currently any undecided PEP is stalled, and no one can p
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 13:02 Jack Jansen wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 2018, at 23:37, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Le 01/08/2018 à 23:31, Jack Diederich a écrit :
> >> https://hg.python.org/committers.txt
> >
> > Probably outdated, for example Pablo Salingo Salgado doesn't seem there.
>
> And
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 14:44 M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 01.08.2018 23:28, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
> > See also an open issue to revamp the Developer log:
> > https://github.com/python/devguide/issues/390
> >
> > Someone has also said that they're working on tracking down the dormant
> > core devs, b
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 00:32 M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 02.08.2018 03:24, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> > On 8/1/2018 8:32 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
> >> I think it would also be a good idea to include core developers
> >> of other Python implementations in such a document, in
> >> separate s
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 14:29 Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
> See also an open issue to revamp the Developer log:
> https://github.com/python/devguide/issues/390
>
> Someone has also said that they're working on tracking down the dormant
> core devs, but now I can't find that email.
>
Ethan said he would
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 04:54 Stefan Richthofer
wrote:
> Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting email
>> addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.
>>
>
> I always thought there were already at least three places containing the
> necessary email addresses.
>
>
ages to the whole group
> > is a good idea nonetheless. This mailing list will likely already
> > serve that purpose.
> >
> >
> > On 02.08.2018 23:25, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 04:54 Stefan Richthofer <
> stefan.richtho...@gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018, 21:59 Donald Stufft, wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2018, at 1:52 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 00:44 Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>> We should probably have a single source of truth for what a core
>> developer is, and all oth
Someone left
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/9195#issuecomment-420646466 which
was clearly written to upset Victor and insult him. I warned the person
that such behaviour is not okay and future insults would have
ramifications (I was actually asked to ban this person to begin with but I
gave
it, Brett.
> >
> > That kind of behavior is not something we need to allow or tolerate in
> > this community.
> > I'm fine with banning.
> >
> > Mariatta
> >
> > ᐧ
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:18 AM Brett Cannon > <m
re
> otherwise an active contributor or not).
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> Le 13/09/2018 à 18:35, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 09:23 Antoine Pitrou > <mailto:anto...@python.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 13:57 Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 4:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I think the action taken by Brett (apparently decided with Titus and a
> mysterious "conduct working group") is not the right one:
>
>
>
> Just FTR, the conduct working group is the PSF
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 15:35 Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 09/20/2018 02:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > I will also say I didn't voice an opinion or participate in the
> discussion on the conduct WG when deciding how to handle
> > it (beyond outlining our levels of esca
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 11:32, Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
> It is now 7 days until October 1, the deadline for coming up with Python
> Governance PEPs.
>
> Some still relevant links:
>
> - https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8000/ Python Language Governance
> Proposal Overview
> - https://www.python.o
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 09:18, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 25.09.2018 16:28, 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.
>
> I cannot comment on what you actually have in PEP
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 15:58, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Serhiy:
> > And changing the major version number itself is significant breaking
> change. From the name of the executable (python3 vs python4) hardcoded in
> Python
>
> IMHO It's time to discuss again modifying the "python" program to always
Since there isn't a way to do this in any fashion I never really thought
about it. I think most people either set the shebang to the version of
Python they want it to work with, have pip install the entry point which
will also set the entry point, or assume that e.g. python3 is new enough to
work.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 08:31, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 10:16 AM Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
> [..]
> > Well, I could announce it, but nobody would pay any attention. Why
> > should we pay attention to this announcement? No offense to Łukasz, but
> > how did he get put in char
One data point in all of this is Victor's PEP 8015. Here on the mailing
list I seem to be the first and only person to reply since the PEP was
posted on Monday. But over on Discourse there have been 3 people who have
replied and there's already been some back-and-forth.
So with a sample size of on
101 - 200 of 669 matches
Mail list logo
