> But then you don't get to pass arguments to the program,
> get to see the output before the window disappears, etc.
Did you actually try before posting?
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
Raymond> With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
Raymond> to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
Raymond> won't become useless on Windows builds.
My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for 2.7 and 3.1.
I'm a bit less sure a
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Guido van Rossum]
>>
>> Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
>> beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
>> to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>> OTOH, other things *are* available, such as registered extensions.
>> For example, you don't need python on PATH to start a Python script;
>> just invoking the .py file will find the Python interpreter from the
>> registry.
>
> But then you don't ge
Antoine Pitrou writes:
> It's not only the marketing. Having both releases in lock step means the
> development process is synchronized between trunk and py3k, that there is no
> loss of developer focus, and that merges/backports happen quite naturally.
As usual, in theory precision is infinit
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Heimes cheimes.de> writes:
>>
>> Ok, from the marketing perspective it's a nice catch to release 2.6 and
>> 3.0 on the same day. "Python 2.6.0 and 3.0.0 released" makes a great
>> headline.
>
> It's not only the
Christian Heimes cheimes.de> writes:
>
> Ok, from the marketing perspective it's a nice catch to release 2.6 and
> 3.0 on the same day. "Python 2.6.0 and 3.0.0 released" makes a great
> headline.
It's not only the marketing. Having both releases in lock step means the
development process is sy
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on sche
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
OTOH, other things *are* available, such as registered extensions.
For example, you don't need python on PATH to start a Python script;
just invoking the .py file will find the Python interpreter from the
registry.
But then you don't get to pass arguments to the program,
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1s
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We
>> have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We d
On Sep 7, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
FWIW, many years ago in the past when I asked sleepycat about this
(long before oracle bought them) they said that python was considered
to be the application. Using berkeleydb via python for a commercial
application did not require a berkele
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We
> have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do not have
> a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have high hopes for rectifying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st
goal. We have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred
blockers. We do not have a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have
high hopes for rectifying all of these problems i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:37 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 12:02:06PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
There are 8 open release blockers, a few of which have patches that
need
review. So I think we are still not ready to release rc1. Bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 7, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
(I have a few minor ET fixes, and possibly a Unicode 5.1 patch,
but have had absolutely no time to spend on that. is the window
still open?)
There are 8 open release blockers
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 12:02:06PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> There are 8 open release blockers, a few of which have patches that need
> review. So I think we are still not ready to release rc1. But it
> worries me because I think this is going to push the final release
> beyond our October
Fredrik Lundh pythonware.com> writes:
>
> So what's the new ETA? Should I set aside some time to work on the
> patches, say, tomorrow, or is it too late?
Given the state of things in the tracker, I'd say it doesn't look too late.
___
Python-Dev mai
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 05:55:13PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
> Trent, are you available to look at the ?spurious? timeout failures in
> bsddb replication code in the Windows buildbot?.
>
> Ten seconds timeout should be plenty enough. I can't debug any MS
> Windows issue myself; this is a Microsoft-f
20 matches
Mail list logo
