Re: [python-committers] PQM?

On 2008-08-14 10:37, Brett Cannon wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] Anyway, if we're going to change policies around submitting code, I would much rather see peer review become a habit than adopt a tool like PQM. The part where I'm

Re: [python-committers] [snakebite] I've got a surprise for you!

On 2009-01-27 21:01, Trent Nelson wrote: I've just set up a mailing list for those that want to carry on with discussions; this CC list is getting a bit unwieldy. Subscription URL: http://groups.google.com/group/snakebite-list. E-mail address is

Re: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn

On 2009-02-25 23:31, Brett Cannon wrote: To see if people actually want to switch off of svn to a DVCS, I have put together a survey for everyone to state for each DVCS if they think it is better, worse, or equal to svn (and an option to not say anything if you have no experience with the

Re: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn

Slightly corrected :-) On 2009-02-26 00:14, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: There's an option missing in that survey: [ ] I don't see a need to switch to a DVCS at all. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Feb 26 2009) Python/Zope Consulting

Re: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn

On 2009-02-26 00:35, Mark Hammond wrote: There's an option missing in that survey: [ ] I don't see a need to switch to a DVCS at all. To be fair, the survey isn't asking about a switch, just how they compare against svn. But I must admin that seems a little strange; while I just answered

Re: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn

On 2009-02-26 00:46, Brett Cannon wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 15:35, Mark Hammond mhamm...@skippinet.com.auwrote: There's an option missing in that survey: [ ] I see a need to switch to a DVCS at all. To be fair, the survey isn't asking about a switch, just how they compare against svn.

Re: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn

: On Feb 26, 2009, at 6:03 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: Looking at the PEP 374, the DVCSes don't appear to make life easier for common repo tasks (they each require more or less the same number of commands), so the argument for using a DVCS is more about giving non-core developers access to a version

Re: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn

On 2009-02-26 15:50, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Hi, I'm no trying to advocate switching to a DVCS, but really: I think that's a much better approach and one that reduces the load on the python.org repo sys-admins. How does having 4 more-or-less supported VCSes, rather than 1, lighten the

Re: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn

On 2009-02-26 16:36, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 16:10 +0100, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit : I didn't know that and was under the impression that those other systems simply hook up to the svn repo via the standard Subversion interfaces. They hook up to the svn repo

Re: [python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn

On 2009-02-27 20:56, Georg Brandl wrote: M.-A. Lemburg schrieb: IMHO, those are all feel-good factors which can easily be had by installing a local Subversion repo copy (sync'ed using svnsync (*)), except perhaps regarding merging - but I don't know anything about in what way the DVCSes

Re: [python-committers] Doug Hellmann

Jesse Noller wrote: I would like to propose we give the commit bit to Doug Hellmann in order for him to help out with documentation and GHOP style tasks (he's helped in the past). You might know him from the Python Module of the Week series here: http://www.doughellmann.com/PyMOTW/

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4 final this Sunday?

Martin v. Löwis wrote: It would be nice to get this issue resolved out for 2.6.4: http://bugs.python.org/issue4120 The problem is that extensions built with 2.6.x will not work when used with a User-only installation of Python on machines that don't already have the MS VC90 CRT DLLs

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4 final this Sunday?

Martin v. Löwis wrote: As this bug already exists in 2.6.2, I don't think the change is eligible for 2.6.4. In addition, I want to review it, which I won't be able to until Sunday. Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a chance to look at the patch. That won't

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4 final this Sunday?

Barry Warsaw wrote: On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:01 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a chance to look at the patch. That's not a good option, IMO. We have a known broken 2.6.3 out there and we owe it to our users to correct our mistake

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4 final this Sunday?

Barry Warsaw wrote: On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:07 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: Would it be reasonable to shorten that period, if the fix for the mentioned problem gets ready for prime time earlier ? I think there are many 2.6.x bugs queued up for after 2.6.4 is released. I'm not at all opposed

Re: [python-committers] SSH keys and Keychain

Vinay Sajip wrote: Jesus Cea jcea at jcea.es writes: I would use ssh-agent directly, via ssh-add. It is what I do. Hi Jesus, Thanks for the response. I've tried that, with no luck. The key is added to ssh-agent, which I verified using ssh-add -l - but I still get prompted for the

Re: [python-committers] Delaying 3.2 release

Martin v. Löwis wrote: I'm delaying the 3.2 alpha1 release by one week; I don't have enough time to sort through all the possible issues and get acquainted with the release machinery this weekend. Should we perhaps delay the entire schedule by one month? A number of things that people want

Re: [python-committers] changes after 2.7 final

M.-A. Lemburg wrote: Benjamin Peterson wrote: After I tag 2.7 this Saturday, I will effect the following changes in the repository: - I will make the 2.7 maintenance branch. - I will remove svnmerge from trunk - py3k. - I will initialize svnmerge from py3k - 2.7maint. - The trunk

Re: [python-committers] Eric Araujo (merwok) as Distutils commiter

Tarek Ziadé wrote: On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: Le mardi 27 juillet 2010 à 01:50 +0200, Tarek Ziadé a écrit : Hello, I don't want to maintain Distutils anymore for various reasons. I will focus for now on on Distutils2, shutil and sysconfig.

Re: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] Code Simplicity » Open Source Community, Simplified

Barry Warsaw wrote: On Feb 03, 2011, at 08:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: I suspect this problem with the preferred DVCS workflow is going to cut fairly heavily into the number of bug fixes applied to the maintenance branches. I'd be really surprised if it *has* to be that way. Just how

Re: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] Code Simplicity » Open Source Community, Simplified

Jesus Cea wrote: On 03/02/11 13:04, Nick Coghlan wrote: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es wrote: In fact, up-porting is usually better, because you don't have to think if you must downport or not. Versión n+1 is always a superset of versión n. So you up-port *ALWAYS*,

Re: [python-committers] Create a Mercurial repository with a branch per issue

Tarek Ziadé wrote: You are building a patch and submit it to reviews (in roundup or in a clone or retvield etc). You get feedback and you refine the patch. I don't think you want to keep that history, e.g. changing this and that in my patch after feedback from MrX about Y The main line

Re: [python-committers] do we still believe explicit relative imports are bad as PEP 8 claims?

Brett Cannon wrote: It says they are highly discouraged because absolute imports are more portable and usually more readable, but now that people have had a chance to use explicit relative imports, do people still believe this? I mean if we truly believed this then why did we add the syntax?

Re: [python-committers] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall]

Antoine Pitrou wrote: What is the process now? Is it a showstopper? Yes. Developers uploading copyrightable patches to the tracker need to sign the contributor agreement before those patches can make it into the core - even before they get direct commit rights. Otherwise, the PSF does not

Re: [python-committers] [PSF-Members] [Fwd: Re: Push rights for Ross Lagerwall]

I really don't understand what all the fuzz is about. We have a two step process: * Step 1 What the PSF initially needs is an acknowledgement of the contributor (committer or not) that he or she is willing to accept and enter into the agreement. This can be done by checking a checkbox on the

Re: [python-committers] There are two versions of the Contributor Agreement

Terry Reedy wrote: On 3/23/2011 9:31 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-python/ and http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ It looks like the first one is old, because http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ points to the second one. I believe

Re: [python-committers] There are two versions of the Contributor Agreement

R. David Murray wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:40:44 +0100, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote: The second one is the one we currently use. It does not have the clause to cover past contributions, since we now expect contributors to sign the CLA before the contributions go into the repository

[python-committers] Python language summit on ustream.tv

Dear Python Developers, for the upcoming language summit at EuroPython, I'd like to try out whether streaming such meetings would work. I'll setup a webcam and stream the event live to a private channel on ustream.tv. These are the details in case you want to watch: URL:

Re: [python-committers] Python Language Summit at PyCon

Hi Michael, I won't be at PyCon US, so can't attend. I've added a page on the streaming details to the PSF wiki in case someone wants to give that a try. AFAIK, there was no interest from other developers in joining in via that channel when we ran the streaming of the summit at EuroPython, so it

Re: [python-committers] Anatoly Techtonik's contribution

On 07.11.2012 09:45, Łukasz Langa wrote: I'd like to raise a concern that Anatoly's actions are disruptive and largely unhelpful. His passive-agressive writing style is well known but it seems this no longer satisfies him. Today, without consulting anyone he edited our Wiki guidelines and

Re: [python-committers] Relicensing source code for inclusion in Python

On 04.04.2013 18:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Hello, In http://bugs.python.org/issue17618, I proposed adding a base85 implementation to Python. Mercurial already has one (under the GPL), so I wrote to the authors (Brendan Cully and Mads Kiilerich) and got their informal approval for

Re: [python-committers] Python bug bounty

On 07.11.2013 11:40, Christian Heimes wrote: Hi, this is going through the news right now. Has anybody contact us about the bug bounty program for Python? https://hackerone.com/python FWIW, the PSF was not contacted about this in advance. Sounds like a nice project, though. --

Re: [python-committers] Python bug bounty

On 07.11.2013 12:24, Christian Heimes wrote: Am 07.11.2013 11:45, schrieb M.-A. Lemburg: On 07.11.2013 11:40, Christian Heimes wrote: Hi, this is going through the news right now. Has anybody contact us about the bug bounty program for Python? https://hackerone.com/python FWIW, the PSF

Re: [python-committers] Anatoly has been warned about his behaviour potentially leading to his loss of tracker privileges

On 29.11.2013 22:37, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote: [bunch of stuff I agree with :-)] I think it would be hard to justify to the world banning Anatoly for his relatively minor annoyances when it took so long to do something about one

Re: [python-committers] PyCon Language Summit: Wednesday 9th April

On 04.12.2013 20:07, Benjamin Peterson wrote: 2013/12/4 Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org: On Dec 04, 2013, at 07:15 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: As for the question, I think we should wait at least two or three years before sunsetting 2.7. I've been thinking we should move Python 2.7 to

Re: [python-committers] PyCon Language Summit: Wednesday 9th April

On 05.12.2013 00:03, Brian Curtin wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:47 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote: Can you clarify on some specific interesting cases you ran into? One example is users stuck on e.g. Zope 2.10 or Plone 3.3 (or even earlier). They cannot upgrade because

Re: [python-committers] Adding a (small) feature to 3.4 for Argument Clinic: inspect.Signature supporting simple named constants for default values

On 06.01.2014 22:34, Larry Hastings wrote: p.s. For what it's worth, the documentation for match() dodges this problem by outright lying. It claims that the prototype for the function is: match(string[, pos[, endpos]]) which is a lie. pattern_match() parses its arguments by

Re: [python-committers] Buildbot issues?

On 06.02.2014 22:52, Zachary Ware wrote: Hi all, Just got this output from pushing a commit: pushing to ssh://h...@hg.python.org/cpython searching for changes remote: adding changesets remote: adding manifests remote: adding file changes remote: added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1

Re: [python-committers] Contact info for possible workflow tool security issue

On 20.06.2014 03:13, Nick Coghlan wrote: A colleague spotted a possible security issue with one of the CPython workflow tools (specifically with the configuration of our installation, rather than with the upstream project), and would like to know where to report it securely. Currently the

Re: [python-committers] Proposed core developer for contributing to multiprocessing

On 10.01.2015 13:38, Berker Peksağ wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:33 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote: Hi Ezio, I think I'm not making myself clear enough :-) Technically, operations would stay the same (tickets, patches, reviews), but from a motivational point of view, you change

Re: [python-committers] Proposed core developer for contributing to multiprocessing

On 09.01.2015 23:52, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Le 09/01/2015 23:47, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit : Antoine and Victor argued that new developers should first show their skills by submitting patches to tickets, working with other core devs before getting the commit bit set. My suggestion was allowing

Re: [python-committers] Proposed core developer for contributing to multiprocessing

On 09.01.2015 12:47, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 7 January 2015 at 20:22, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote: If David didn't contribute before, I'm against giving him directly the developer access. Different people repeat that you don't need to have the developer access to contribute.

Re: [python-committers] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?

On 03.04.2015 11:56, Larry Hastings wrote: My Windows development days are firmly behind me. So I don't really have an opinion here. So I put it to you, Windows Python developers: do you care about GnuPG signatures on Windows-specific files? Or do you not care? Regardless of target

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?

On 03.04.2015 19:35, Steve Dower wrote: My Windows development days are firmly behind me. So I don't really have an opinion here. So I put it to you, Windows Python developers: do you care about GnuPG signatures on Windows-specific files? Or do you not care? The later replies seem to

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?

On 16.04.2015 21:34, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Am 04.04.15 um 21:54 schrieb M.-A. Lemburg: FWIW: The PSF mostly uses StartSSL nowadays and they also support code signing certificates. Given that this option is a lot cheaper than Verisign, I think we should switch, unless there are significant

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?

On 17.04.2015 19:31, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Am 17.04.15 um 00:46 schrieb M.-A. Lemburg: I had asked the PSF for a StartSSL certificate when the previous certificate expired, and the PSF was not able to provide one. After waiting several weeks for the PSF to provide the certificate, Kurt

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?

On 04.04.2015 00:14, Steve Dower wrote: The thing is, that's exactly the same goodness as Authenticode gives, except everyone gets that for free and meanwhile you're the only one who has admitted to using GPG on Windows :) Basically, what I want to hear is that GPG sigs provide

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?

On 04.04.2015 02:49, Donald Stufft wrote: On Apr 3, 2015, at 6:38 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote: On 04.04.2015 00:14, Steve Dower wrote: The thing is, that's exactly the same goodness as Authenticode gives, except everyone gets that for free and meanwhile you're the only one who

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?

On 04.04.2015 16:41, Steve Dower wrote: Relying only on Authenticode for Windows installers would result in a break in technology w/r to the downloads we make available for Python, since all other files are (usually) GPG signed This is the point of this discussion. I'm willing to make such

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?

On 04.04.2015 21:49, Kurt B. Kaiser wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 03:35 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: On 04.04.2015 21:02, Kurt B. Kaiser wrote: For the record, that is a Symantec/Verisign code signing certificate. We paid $1123 for it last April. It expires April 2017. If you don't switch

Re: [python-committers] How are we merging forward from the Bitbucket 3.5 repo?

On 16.08.2015 16:08, Guido van Rossum wrote: I presume the issue here is that Hg is so complicated that everyone knows a different subset of the commands and semantics. I personally don't know what the commands for cherry-picking a revision would be. I also don't know exactly what happens

Re: [python-committers] Github accounts

On 03.01.2016 22:06, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 5:38 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > >> On 03.01.2016 05:19, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> This hardly seems like a real problem, so let's not worry more about it >>> until

Re: [python-committers] Github accounts (was: formalising retirement as a Python committer)

On 02.01.2016 13:06, Andrew MacIntyre wrote: > While the announcement today of the planned move of the Python repository to > GitHub has no bearing > whatsoever on my decision, I would note that GitHub's requirement that a > person only have one > account - to be used for both personal activity

Re: [python-committers] The peps repo is now on GitHub!

On 16.06.2016 00:42, Brett Cannon wrote: > I don't think anything has fallen over, so I'm calling this a successful > migration! The peps repo is now https://github.com/python/peps . Thanks for putting so much hard work into this ! > I have given the Python core team on GitHub write access to

Re: [python-committers] The peps repo is now on GitHub!

On 16.06.2016 00:48, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > On 16.06.2016 00:42, Brett Cannon wrote: >> I don't think anything has fallen over, so I'm calling this a successful >> migration! The peps repo is now https://github.com/python/peps . > > Thanks for putting so much hard work into

Re: [python-committers] New Authenticode certificate

To everyone: We now have a PSF code signing certificate. I have sent the certificate to Steve for use in the Windows installers. If other developers need to create signed installers/code for Python, please let me know. Thanks. On 22.01.2016 10:44, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > On 21.01.2016 20

Re: [python-committers] New Authenticode certificate

On 09.02.2016 18:41, Jeff Hardy wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > >> To everyone: We now have a PSF code signing certificate. >> >> I have sent the certificate to Steve for use in the Windows >> installers. If ot

Re: [python-committers] New Authenticode certificate

On 09.02.2016 22:40, Steve Dower wrote: > On 09Feb2016 1030, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> On 09.02.2016 18:41, Jeff Hardy wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> To everyone: We now have a PSF co

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

On 29.02.2016 18:38, Brett Cannon wrote: > ... If we > happen to be at a meetup or conference that has not implemented a CoC that > shouldn't give us an excuse as esteemed representatives of this language > and community to be lax in our behaviour since how we act as core devs is > probably

Re: [python-committers] New Authenticode certificate

On 21.01.2016 17:40, Steve Dower wrote: > (I forget exactly who to contact about the certificate, so I'm going slightly > more broad.) > > The PSF's certificate we use to sign binaries and the installer for Windows > is a SHA-1 certificate, > which has been deprecated as of the start of the

[python-committers] Anyone up for a core dev panel discussion at EuroPython 2016 ?

Hello all, at this year's EuroPython we'll have a new officially supported feature, the panel discussion, and we (I'm one of the organizers) thought it would be big fun to have a panel of core developers talk about the merits of computed gotos, micro benchmarks, adding fast-paths for integer,

Re: [python-committers] Anyone up for a core dev panel discussion at EuroPython 2016 ?

On 19.02.2016 17:47, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > 2016-02-19 17:35 GMT+01:00 M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com>: >> No, seriously, this is great stuff normal Python users never get >> to see and that's really a shame. > > This week, I wrote an article listin

Re: [python-committers] Anyone up for a core dev panel discussion at EuroPython 2016 ?

On 20.02.2016 03:20, Jesus Cea wrote: > On 19/02/16 17:35, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> at this year's EuroPython we'll have a new officially supported >> feature, the panel discussion, and we (I'm one of the organizers) >> thought it would be big fun to have a panel of core dev

Re: [python-committers] Anyone up for a core dev panel discussion at EuroPython 2016 ?

On 21.02.2016 17:00, Christian Heimes wrote: > On 2016-02-19 17:35, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> Hello all, > >> at this year's EuroPython we'll have a new officially supported >> feature, the panel discussion, and we (I'm one of the organizers) >> thought it would be b

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

On 05.03.2016 00:40, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 at 14:04 M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > >> Brett, >> >> I don't think that spamming all MLs, Github accounts, etc. >> with CoC notices will help anyone. >> > > Which is not w

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

On 06.03.2016 17:52, Ezio Melotti wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> >> Python-ideas has been under the same CoC for a while now and it has been >> nothing but positive. When people know they are expected to behave in a >> civil manner and others

Re: [python-committers] Pace of change for Python 3.x [was: My cavalier and aggressive manner, API] change and bugs introduced for basically zero benefit

On 24.01.2017 22:08, Victor Stinner wrote: > 2017-01-24 21:46 GMT+01:00 Neil Schemenauer : >> Maybe we could emulate the Linux kernel releases. I.e. have >> relatively fast moving development but also choose releases to give >> long maintenance cycles. Ideally the long

Re: [python-committers] Proposed new core developer -- Mariatta Wijaya

On 26.01.2017 16:52, Victor Stinner wrote: > 2017-01-26 14:49 GMT+01:00 Nick Coghlan : >> With Raymond volunteering as mentor, I think an approach where changes >> are still reviewed, but it's Mariatta that does the final commit would >> work. >> >> That would be pretty similar

Re: [python-committers] Pace of change for Python 3.x

On 25.01.2017 13:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 25/01/2017 à 10:19, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit : >> All that said, I believe a having a Python 2.7 style long >> support version for Python 3 would be nice and have a stabilizing >> effect which our user base would appreciate

Re: [python-committers] Discussions on PRs

On 13.02.2017 23:49, Victor Stinner wrote: > 2017-02-13 19:30 GMT+01:00 Serhiy Storchaka : >> I'm going to >> unsubscribe from getting emails for all pull requests and subscribe to only >> selected ones. > > I did exactly that, very early :-) > >

Re: [python-committers] The new github PR messages

Related to this: is there a way to unsubcribe from the codecov notifications ? Those seem to originate directly from github (rather than being sent via the checkins list) and so far I've only found the option to unfollow the entire repo, which is not what I want. I've installed a filter now, so

[python-committers] Discussions on PRs

With the move to Github, I'm seeing a move away from discussions on the issue tracker towards discussions on pull requests. Example: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/4 Is this something we should encourage or better ask the OPs to open a ticket on the tracker first and reference the PR

Re: [python-committers] Greeting from INADA Naoki

On 27.09.2016 19:35, INADA Naoki wrote: > Hi, all. > > Thank you, Yury and all for approve me. > > I'll focus on polishing dict implementation, and getting familiar with > workflow until 3.6. Welcome, Inada-san ! > Self-introduction: > > * Github account name is methane > > * Maintainer of

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

On 16.03.2017 00:49, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 at 08:44 Berker Peksağ <berker.pek...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 12 Mar

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

Thanks, Raymond, this reads like a good proposal, but I'd like to suggest that the three people in question are only intended to discuss whether a CoC event has taken place or not and what the person has to say about this. They should then write up a summary to present to the PSF Board which then

[python-committers] PR merges don't seem to show up on b.p.o

Is there a reason for this ? Example: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/422 and http://bugs.python.org/issue20087 Also: I'd like to remind other committers that discussions of PRs should happen on the ticket, not the PR. In the above case, the PR was merged while we were still discussing

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

On 10.03.2017 23:13, Brett Cannon wrote: > Fifth, anything I missed? :) My main nit after the move is that messages to the checkin list no longer include the full patch. This makes reviews harder than necessary (you always have to go through the browser). Is there some way this could be changed

Re: [python-committers] I have blocked Wes Turner from the Python org on GitHub

On 01.04.2017 05:44, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > >> On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> In the (long) discussion of >> https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/6, Wes Turner began to do his >> usual posting of lists. People pointed out he was stepping

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

Since this is a matter outside the realm of committers, the PSF board will have to ultimately decide on any actions taken. The committers can report issues to the board and provide information useful for their decisions, the bad actor also has to be given a chance to respond to allegations and be

Re: [python-committers] Proposing Carol Willing to become a core developer

On 23.05.2017 20:15, Brett Cannon wrote: > While at the PyCon US sprints the idea came up of offering Carol Willing > developer privileges. Everyone at the table -- about 6 of us -- liked the > idea and Carol also said she would happy to become a core dev, so I'm > officially putting her forward

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

On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes wrote: >> This brings me to my questions >> >> 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with >> having major decisions just in Github PRs? >> >> 2) How can we retain

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

On 02.05.2017 00:32, Christian Heimes wrote: > This brings me to my questions > > 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with > having major decisions just in Github PRs? We've had that discussion before: discussions always should happen on BPO, not Github PRs. PRs are

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

a few more comments do mostly deal with code reviews. On 03.05.2017 10:06, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 3 May 2017 at 05:09, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: >> This doesn't have much to do with UX/UI. It's mainly a questions >> of culture. > > It's about the UI/UX fo

Re: [python-committers] Security: please enable 2-factor authentication on GitHub and your email

I'm with David on this one. 2FA is good for admin accounts, but doesn't add much protection for regular committers. Think of what you're trying to protect against: git checkins are all audited and can easily be undone. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from

Re: [python-committers] Changing commiter status

egistered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ http://www.malemburg.com/ > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:59 AM Brett Cannon wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 06:43 Nick Coghlan wrote: >> &

Re: [python-committers] Changing commiter status (was: Missing In Action)

Victor: please make sure that you contact the developers whos status you intend to modify prior to doing so. Being a core developer of Python is a status and not something that should be changed without consent by the developer in question. Also note that the dev list log doesn't include all

Re: [python-committers] Changing commiter status

On 19.06.2018 18:39, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 12:41 M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> On 18.06.2018 21:07, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> Hm, unless I misunderstood, MAL's >>> >>>> Being a core developer of Python is a status >>

Re: [python-committers] Marking issues as "Release Blocker" priority (was Re: FINAL WEEK FOR 3.7.0 CHANGES!)

In terms of process, it's always good to have a method to escalate a question to higher management in a way which doesn't require the manager to first parse long text messages. So a status such as "Potential Release Blocker" or "RM Review" sounds like a good way forward. Of course a friendly

[python-committers] Comments on moving issues to GitHub

Reading the comments in the thread and having used Github issues myself for a few years now, I find the idea of moving from a dedicated issue tracker we can easily customize to our needs (or hire someone to do so via the PSF) to a simplistic tracker add-on, which Github issues is, not a very

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

-1 in the current form, since an expression such as [y := f(x), x/y] ... is confusing (I'd read this as [y := (f(x), x/y)] Using explicit parens around it would resolve this issue: [(y := f(x)), x/y] ... but even with that, I'm not excited about the additional line noise this adds -

Re: [python-committers] Let's give commit privileges to Nathaniel J. Smith

+1 On 25.01.2018 01:00, Victor Stinner wrote: > +1 > > Impressive list of contributions! > > Victor > > 2018-01-25 0:23 GMT+01:00 Yury Selivanov : >> Hi, >> >> I want to propose granting commit privileges to Nathaniel J. Smith. >> He's interested in the idea of

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

On 02.08.2018 23:07, Brett Cannon wrote: > 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 >>>

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

On 02.08.2018 23:16, Brett Cannon wrote: > 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 de

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

t; being a lifetime title), then the subscription list for this mailing list > is probably good enough with some manual grooming as long we are okay with > long-dormant folk who predate this list not voting (which I'm personally > fine with). But if we wanted a way to reach just peo

[python-committers] List of all core developers

It's become fairly obvious that we are missing a list of core developers on some site. One we can use as reference and one which core devs can also show to other to prove they are core developers. I guess the natural place for such a list is the dev guide, but we could also use a page on

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

elopers of other Python implementations in such a document, in separate sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy, Stackless, etc. > Mariatta > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:15 PM M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> It's become fairly obvious that we are missing a list of core >> developers

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

Thanks for your action plan, Mariatta, but I'm -1 on having strict timelines for these processes. We need to gradually approach a new model as we've done in the past decades and not push for any possibly borked model right from the start. The processes for this need to stay flexible, easy to

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

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 sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy, >>    

Re: [python-committers] An alternative governance model

I find this discussion really interesting from a social perspective. Let's keep it going for a while without jumping to any conclusions. It's too early to head down into one particular rabbit hole yet ;-) There's no rush and if things crystallize only in a year's time, that's perfectly fine.

Re: [python-committers] Proposing Petr Viktorin as a specialist core developer

+1 On 14.04.2018 03:40, Eric Snow wrote: > +1 > > -eric > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Raymond Hettinger > wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 13, 2018, at 5:13 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to propose Petr Viktorin as a specialist core

  1   2   >