Re: [python-committers] Save the date: Core developer sprints

On 18.03.2018 03:16, Larry Hastings wrote: > > > On 03/07/2018 09:25 PM, Steve Dower wrote: >> So far, I have locked in dates and a building. Assuming no disasters, >> we will have Microsoft Building 20 >>

Re: [python-committers] Save the date: Core developer sprints

can join for the > first few days. You won’t force someone else to miss out completely, > we'll have room. > >   > > Top-posted from my Windows phone > >   > > *From: *M.-A. Lemburg <mailto:m...@egenix.com> > *Sent: *Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:50 > *To: *L

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

On 15.11.2018 19:55, Brett Cannon wrote: > > It seems like we're completely skipping the review phase of the > regular PEP process and going straight from PEP writing to > a vote: > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#id38 > > which is odd given the importance of

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

On 15.11.2018 19:39, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Based on my suggestion on Discourse, I propose that the period between > tomorrow and November 30th be an official PEP review period, with voting > postponed to December 1 - 16 AOE 2018. > > https://github.com/python/peps/pull/841 > > I am personally

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

I find it rather unusual that we are pushed to vote on PEPs which will just have been finished in writing tonight. Shouldn't people who were not involved in the individual creation processes at least get two weeks to review the final work to make up their mind before entering a voting period ?

Re: [python-committers] python-committers is dead, long live discuss.python.org

iscuss.python.org and to python-committers... And now we > can enjoy discussions splitted between the two :-) > > Victor > Le sam. 29 sept. 2018 à 09:50, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit : >> >> On 29.09.2018 03:21, Barry Warsaw wrote: >>> On Sep 28, 2018, at 15:03, Victor Stinner

Re: [python-committers] python-committers is dead, long live discuss.python.org

On 09.10.2018 05:33, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > >> On 9 Oct 2018, at 03:29, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> >> FYI: I did sign up on Discourse and have enabled email notifications, >> but it seems that you have to do this on a per forum entry basis, >> since I

Re: [python-committers] python-committers is dead, long live discuss.python.org

which won’t set them to watching, but will email you for *only* > the first post in any new topic, unless you set a topic to watching after > that. Thanks, I'll give that a try. >> On Oct 8, 2018, at 9:29 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> >> FYI: I did sign up on Discourse

Re: [python-committers] python-committers is dead, long live discuss.python.org

On 29.09.2018 03:21, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 28, 2018, at 15:03, Victor Stinner wrote: > >> It seems like anyone can subscribe. Is the Committer group reserved to >> core developers? If yes, how do you know which accounts are linked to >> core developers? > > You must be approved to join

Re: [python-committers] python-committers is dead, long live discuss.python.org

On 29.09.2018 11:40, Łukasz Langa wrote: > >> On Sep 29, 2018, at 09:53, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> Especially on the eve of critical governance discussions that will heavily >> impact the future of python-dev. > > Ironically it's the very gravity of those upcoming discussions that made us >

Re: [python-committers] CoC violation (was: Retire or reword the "Beautiful is better than ugly" Zen clause)

On 21.09.2018 14:59, Paul Moore wrote: > Balance, forgiveness, and a mature level of empathy are what's > *really* needed ("among the things that are needed...":-)). Not > policies. Policies should be weapons of last resort. Agreed. I guess we'll also have to learn that flamebait as we had it in

Re: [python-committers] 1 week to Oct 1

Could the authors of those PEPs please at least publish a rough outline of what their model is all about ? It doesn't help if we set a deadline only to find that we should have written up a competing PEP shortly before the deadline passes. The only text we have at this point is PEP 8013:

Re: [python-committers] [PEP 8013] The External Council Governance Model

Thanks, Steve, for writing this up: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8013/ A couple of comments: I like the council model, but don't understand why the core developers should be stripped from any decision powers. External people will not have the institutional knowledge core developers

Re: [python-committers] Council / board (Was: 1 week to Oct 1)

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 8011 as diversity clause, since the page is just a

Re: [python-committers] Votes on new core dev candidates

On 25.03.2019 23:58, Steve Dower wrote: > On 25Mar2019 1503, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> On 25.03.2019 16:20, Steve Dower wrote: >>> To be clear, my pushback (on Discourse, since I can only send email from >>> an actual laptop these days but can participate over there

Re: [python-committers] Vote to promote Stéphane Wirtel as a core dev

On 26.03.2019 05:20, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > >> On Mar 22, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: >> >> Julien Palard and me (Victor) propose to promote Stéphane Wirtel as >> core developer. We open a vote until March 31 (~one week). "[A >> promotion] is granted by receiving at least

Re: [python-committers] Votes on new core dev candidates

I must say, I'm a bit surprised by the discussion around the voting process and the candidates. First, we've been complaining about lack of core devs for a long time. Now we have two great candidates with proven track record of contributing to Python and people complain again. As a small group,

Re: [python-committers] Vote to promote Stéphane Wirtel as a core dev

+1 (not exactly sure how the vote would work, so at this point just an indication of support) On 22.03.2019 16:40, Victor Stinner wrote: > Oh. I forgot to mention that I offer to mentor Stéphane once he would > become a core dev for 1 month for help him to deal with his new > responsibilities. I

[python-committers] Fwd: EPS: Announcing the Guido van Rossum Core Developer Grant

FYI... perhaps you now understand why I was keen to get the committers listed somewhere :-) Forwarded Message Subject: EPS: Announcing the Guido van Rossum Core Developer Grant Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:25:52 +0100 From: M.-A. Lemburg Organization: EuroPython Society (EPS

Re: [python-committers] Fwd: EPS: Announcing the Guido van Rossum Core Developer Grant

Happy to see that you like the idea. Our hope is that more conferences will pick it up as well. On 31.01.2019 18:41, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > >> On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:15 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> >> To help with growing the team, putting it more into the sp

[python-committers] Learning from PostgreSQL community: How to address the review bottleneck

I've attended FOSDEM over the weekend, where Jon Conway (one of the PostgreSQL committers) gave a talk about, among other things, the PG community and how it is structured: https://fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/postgresql11/ (the community part starts at around 8 min into the video) What struck

Re: [python-committers] Promote Mark Sapiro and Abhilash Raj as core developers

I think Mark and Abhilash would be the perfect choice to (help) maintain the email package. They have done a great job on making sure Mailman works for us and know from real world experience what the issues are you face nowadays with email (such as having to deal with the wonderful technology

Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] Farewell, Python 3.4

Thank you for having been 3.4 release manager, Larry ! On 08.05.2019 17:36, Larry Hastings wrote: > > It's with a note of sadness that I announce the final retirement of > Python 3.4.  The final release was back in March, but I didn't get > around to actually closing and deleting the 3.4 branch

[python-committers] Re: proposed canonical list of Python core team members

Note that details about commits predating opening up the repository for external commits which happened sometime in 2000 IIRC are not necessarily correct. Before opening up the repo, patches were submitted to the repo via the team around Guido. This Misc/ACKS file was used in those times to give

[python-committers] Re: Possible bug in voting system ? (was: Re: Reminder to vote for the 2020 Steering Council)

On 10.12.2019 23:57, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 06:52, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> The conversion to an inactive dev is something that core devs need >> to be asked to agree to, and thus needs to be managed as a status >> flag, not depend on commits to the repo

[python-committers] Re: Possible bug in voting system ? (was: Re: Reminder to vote for the 2020 Steering Council)

On 11.12.2019 20:19, Brett Cannon wrote: > As for the "please email everyone personally", I just don't have the time to > email 30 people that Giampolo listed or the 89 total people who could vote > but didn't commit or author something in the past two years . But do note > that me lacking the

[python-committers] Re: Possible bug in voting system ? (was: Re: Reminder to vote for the 2020 Steering Council)

On 11.12.2019 00:58, Brett Cannon wrote: > We discussed the situation on the steering council and we are fine with > making an exception for folks who felt caught off-guard asking Ernest to be > added to the voter roll even though voting has already started. Thanks. > In the new year I will

[python-committers] Possible bug in voting system ? (was: Re: Reminder to vote for the 2020 Steering Council)

I had been waiting for the ballot email, but have not received any. I then checked the voters list and came across this section in the readme: """ According to PEP 13, active membership is defined as "any non-trivial contribution in two years". As such, the coredev active command will create a

[python-committers] Re: PEP 13 and approval voting.

Hi Thomas, to get more votes, it may help to start a new thread specifically for voting and prefixing the subject with "ACTION NEEDED: Please vote - ". We're using this approach in several PSF WGs and it's working better than voting emails deep inside discussion threads. Cheers, -- Marc-Andre

[python-committers] Re: Language Summit

Thanks for sending those references. On 4/16/2020 2:04 PM, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote: > Here are the slides for our talk about the new PEG parser: > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1N_GaMjrLt1HUicbSwqC6QWGB751qj2RqtEqo_lGI0js/edit?usp=drivesdk > > Pablo > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020,

[python-committers] Re: Performance benchmarks for 3.9

On 14.10.2020 16:14, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le 14/10/2020 à 15:16, Pablo Galindo Salgado a écrit : >> Hi! >> >> I have updated the branch benchmarks in the pyperformance server and now >> they include 3.9. There are >> some benchmarks that are faster but on the other hand some benchmarks >> are

[python-committers] Re: Performance benchmarks for 3.9

On 15.10.2020 15:50, Victor Stinner wrote: > Le mer. 14 oct. 2020 à 17:59, Antoine Pitrou a écrit : >> unpack-sequence is a micro-benchmark. (...) > > I suggest removing it. > > I removed other similar micro-benchmarks from pyperformance in the > past, since they can easily be misunderstood and

[python-committers] Re: Resignation from Stefan Krah

On 08.10.2020 00:26, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 10/7/20 2:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> Apparently, Stefan Krah (core developer and author of the C _decimal >> module) was silently banned or moderated from posting to python.org >> mailing-lists. > > This seems odd -- does the Steering Council

[python-committers] Re: Performance benchmarks for 3.9

Hi Pablo, thanks for pointing this out. Would it be possible to get the data for older runs back, so that it's easier to find the changes which caused the slowdown ? Going to the timeline, it seems that the system only has data for Oct 14 (today):

[python-committers] Re: Performance benchmarks for 3.9

ted and it didn't run in a long time :( Make sense. Would it be possible rerun the tests with the current setup for say the last 1000 revisions or perhaps a subset of these (e.g. every 10th revision) to try to binary search for the revision which introduced the change ? > On Wed, 14 Oct

[python-committers] Re: Performance benchmarks for 3.9

On 14.10.2020 17:59, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 14/10/2020 à 17:25, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit : >> >> Well, there's a trend here: >> >> [...] >> >> Those two benchmarks were somewhat faster in Py3.7 and got slower in 3.8 >> and then again in 3.9, so

[python-committers] Re: Farewell, Python 3.5

Thank you, Larry and the whole release team, for putting so much work into this ! On 01.10.2020 19:49, Larry Hastings wrote: > > At last!  Python 3.5 has now officially reached its end-of-life.  Since there > have been no checkins or PRs since I tagged 3.5.10, 3.5.10 will stand as the > final

[python-committers] Guido van Rossum Core Developer Grant & EuroPython

Dear follow core developers, I would like to invite you to attend this year's EuroPython conference: https://ep2020.europython.eu/ The conference will be held online from July 23-26 and we took special care to add slots which can easily be followed from pretty all around the world. The first

[python-committers] Re: Making it easier to track who is currently considered "active" for voting

FYI: There's a ticket open to address the remaining missing parts of the process that is defined in PEP 13 vs. the what the voting script implements: https://github.com/python/voters/issues/16 I've implemented some extra logic to enable tracking the inactivity status as per PER 13 and creating a

[python-committers] Re: MSDN Subscription renewals

On 13.08.2020 21:18, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:04 AM Zachary Ware wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:29 PM Steve Dower wrote: >>> While most of the tooling necessary for working on CPython is freely >>> available (as Visual Studio Community), this will also include

[python-committers] Re: Python Core Developer Status Inquiry

https://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ https://www.malemburg.com/ On 18.11.2020 16:44, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > I've sent a reminder to these core devs: > > Alexandre Vassalotti > Amaury Forgeot d'Arc > Armin Ronacher > David Wolever >

[python-committers] Python Core Developer Status Inquiry

FYI: I have sent out the Python Code Developer status inquiries to these core developers, which have not committed to the CPython Github repo in the last two years and for which we don't have a status answer using the new inactivity reply feature in the voter roll script yet: Alex Martelli

[python-committers] Re: Python Core Developer Status Inquiry

On 11.11.2020 22:04, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I wonder what Marc-André Lemburg is going to respond... :-) I already did :-) People who replied with "stay active" will receive an email as well and the list below is proof that it works as indented ;-) > On Wed, Nov 11, 2

[python-committers] Re: Python Core Developer Status Inquiry

ed, Nov 18, 2020 at 7:44 AM M.-A. Lemburg <mailto:m...@egenix.com>> wrote: > > I've sent a reminder to these core devs: > >      Alexandre Vassalotti >      Amaury Forgeot d'Arc >      Armin Ronacher >      David Wolever >      Eli Bend

[python-committers] Re: Python Core Developer Status Inquiry

Inge PJ Eby Philip Jenvey Sjoerd Mullender Steven D'Aprano Thomas Heller Trent Nelson who have not replied yet. The deadline is Nov 25 AoE, when I'll merge the PR with the updates: https://github.com/python/voters/pull/30 Thanks. On 11.11.2020 22:00, M.-A. Lemburg

[python-committers] Re: Python Core Developer Status Inquiry

On 18.11.2020 16:52, Paul Moore wrote: > I'm pretty sure I saw an email from Steven D'Aprano on this list recently. Yes, this was a mistake on my part. I forgot to merge master into my branch before running the script. Sorry. > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 15:44, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >>

[python-committers] Re: CI tests are broken

On 31.03.2021 16:29, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 3/31/21 6:59 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> It seems that some of the doc tests are missing imports of >> e.g. Flag from enum. > > My understanding of doctest is that the global execution environment is > cumulative.  For

[python-committers] Re: CI tests are broken

On 31.03.2021 15:54, Ethan Furman wrote: > Because I could not find any error in the documentation that would cause the > problem (the first three cases succeeded, using the same construct). > >> Why is that even allowed? > > Because the tests are not perfect. > > I did post a message to

[python-committers] Re: Publish better than md5sums of Python builds?

On 17.03.2021 18:53, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, at 09:29, Victor Stinner wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:16 PM Gregory P. Smith wrote: >>> The benefit of listing the sha256 for files is that it prevents this >>> question coming up again and again because md5 is

[python-committers] Re: PEP 563 and Python 3.10.

On 21.04.2021 13:14, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 12:05, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> Perhaps we should reconsider making deprecation warnings only >> visible by explicitly enabling them and instead make them visible >> by default. >> >> Th

[python-committers] Re: PEP 563 and Python 3.10.

On 21.04.2021 12:16, Thomas Wouters wrote: > The idea that we should warn before significant changes to behaviour -- > documented behaviour, like function annotations being evaluated at definition > time, or behaviour commonly depended on, like 'with' being allowed as an > identifier because it

[python-committers] Re: PEP 563 and Python 3.10.

On 21.04.2021 13:35, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 12:24, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> >> Isn't that an educational problem ? Adjusting reporting of >> warnings isn't all that hard: >> >> https://docs.python.org/3/library/warnings.html#the-warnin

[python-committers] Re: Consider adding a Tier 3 to tiered platform support

On 09.04.2022 02:13, Brett Cannon wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:03 AM Marc-Andre Lemburg > wrote: On 06.04.2022 20:48, Brett Cannon wrote: > Last chance on whether my tier 3 proposal make sense! I will take silence as > acceptance and plan to

<    1   2