On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> Python 2.7 is in beta, but not applying such a fix now would probably
> mean that python 2.x would forever remain with the mixed tabs, since
> it would make much less sense for such a change in a minor revision
> (although I'd favor it even
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> Eric Smith trueblade.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Last I saw Antoine had written a script that might do what we want, but
>>> hadn't been thoroughly tested. Now I've seen a few checkins for files that
>>> have been run throug
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Eric Smith trueblade.com> writes:
Last I saw Antoine had written a script that might do what we want, but
hadn't been thoroughly tested. Now I've seen a few checkins for files
that have been run through the script.
As far as I'm concerned, it was a case of eating my own
Eric Smith trueblade.com> writes:
>
> Last I saw Antoine had written a script that might do what we want, but
> hadn't been thoroughly tested. Now I've seen a few checkins for files
> that have been run through the script.
As far as I'm concerned, it was a case of eating my own dog food: runni
2010/5/5 Eric Smith :
> It looks like we're moving ahead with removing tabs. Was there consensus on
> this?
>
> Last I saw Antoine had written a script that might do what we want, but
> hadn't been thoroughly tested. Now I've seen a few checkins for files that
> have been run through the script.
>
It looks like we're moving ahead with removing tabs. Was there consensus
on this?
Last I saw Antoine had written a script that might do what we want, but
hadn't been thoroughly tested. Now I've seen a few checkins for files
that have been run through the script.
What gives? And why do this s
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 14:01, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Le mardi 04 mai 2010 00:37:22, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> > Since 2.7 is probably going to exist for a while, I am running Clang
> 2.7's
> > static analyzer (``clang --static``) over trunk. It's mostly just finding
> > stuff like unneeded variabl
Le mardi 04 mai 2010 00:37:22, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> Since 2.7 is probably going to exist for a while, I am running Clang 2.7's
> static analyzer (``clang --static``) over trunk. It's mostly just finding
> stuff like unneeded variable initialization or variables that are never
> used (compilatio
I am done running the analysis over trunk. I will not svnmerge these changes
into py3k as the amount of time and effort that would take equates to
running the static analyzer again just before 3.2 is released and possibly
catching more changes (and maybe even a newer version of Clang at that
point)
On May 5, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On May 5, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote:
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:43:45AM +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2000-July/108893.html
which are broken
Pipermail's links aren't stable AFAIU. The n
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> Howver, if we delay fixing the C file indentation until we're already on
> hg, the merge tools should offer the best chance of being able to apply
> pre-fix patches and have the software figure out where the whitespace
> changes need to be accounted for.
For t
On May 5, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:43:45AM +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2000-July/108893.html
>>
>> which are broken
>
> Pipermail's links aren't stable AFAIU. The numbering is changing over
> time.
They
Am 05.05.2010 13:24, schrieb Michael Foord:
> On 05/05/2010 12:15, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Georg Brandl wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, and I wouldn't want to make these decisions. That person (or
>>> group) needs to have some weight in the community, or there will be a
>>> feeling of "... and who is he
On 05/05/2010 12:15, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Georg Brandl wrote:
I agree, and I wouldn't want to make these decisions. That person (or
group) needs to have some weight in the community, or there will be a
feeling of "... and who is he to decide anyway". We haven't emphasized
RMship in the past
Oleg Broytman wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:43:45AM +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2000-July/108893.html
>>
>> which are broken
>
>Pipermail's links aren't stable AFAIU. The numbering is changing over
> time.
I don't think that's true in gene
Georg Brandl wrote:
> I agree, and I wouldn't want to make these decisions. That person (or
> group) needs to have some weight in the community, or there will be a
> feeling of "... and who is he to decide anyway". We haven't emphasized
> RMship in the past; it's not a special position, except wh
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:43:45AM +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2000-July/108893.html
>
> which are broken
Pipermail's links aren't stable AFAIU. The numbering is changing over
time.
Oleg.
--
Oleg Broytmanhttp://phd.pp.ru/
Hello all,
It looks like the changes to the python-dev mailman archives broke some
of the links in PEPs.
All the best,
Michael Foord
Original Message
Subject:broken mailing list links in PEP(s?)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 20:22:57 -0700
From: Bayle Shanks
To: we
18 matches
Mail list logo
