Please stay out of the 2.5 branch unless you're one of the release
team - I'm cutting 2.5.1c1 at the moment. There will be a 2.5.1
final next week, assuming all goes well. If you have an urgent
bugfix you need in, please post here and get someone to approve it
before the checkin!
Thanks,
Antho
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> Could you create an example where adding -framework to the end of the
> command-line doesn't work?
I'll see what I can do.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyth
On 4/4/07, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:07:18PM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> This one was at least personally addressed
> (well, to "Python Contributors"), which is a step ahead of most of
> them.
What gets me is that such surveys are invalid because the
FWIW, I've checked a fix into the trunk. The code was waiting half a
second and assumign that the server thread was ready. This
occasionally failed of course. I fixed it by using an event variable
instead of a sleep call.
Not sure if it's worth backporting, as it is only a race condition in
the un
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| This guy, however, has been at it for over a month, this is his fourth
| (or so) mailing. I think an entry in the Mailman persona-non-grata
| list may be appropriate.
So would a letter/email to the chair of his/
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I don't like it. I would rather rely on the private _handle member.
> If that ever gets changed, the test fails.
I made it using _handle.
Right now, we have test_socket_ssl.py using a local openssl and passing
all the tests in all the buildbots, :D
Thanks for your (you
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:07:18PM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
>> This one was at least personally addressed
>> (well, to "Python Contributors"), which is a step ahead of most of
>> them.
>
> What gets me is that such surveys are invalid because the respondents
> aren't
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:07:18PM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
>> This one was at least personally addressed
>> (well, to "Python Contributors"), which is a step ahead of most of
>> them.
>
> What gets me is that such surveys are invalid because the respondents
> aren't
amk> ... no one has analyzed it; they're just *accumulating* the data.
amk> It's stamp collecting as computer science.
+1 QOTF.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:07:18PM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> This one was at least personally addressed
> (well, to "Python Contributors"), which is a step ahead of most of
> them.
What gets me is that such surveys are invalid because the respondents
aren't randomly selected -- they're the
Anthony Baxter writes:
> Just a random aside - is anyone else getting increasingly annoyed by
> these mass-mailed out survey requests from students?
Annoyed, not particularly. Scared, yes: it's long been known that a
field=FIELD is moribund when people start getting "PhDs in FIELD" for
disser
11 matches
Mail list logo
