Raymond Hettinger wrote:
The API for the unittest module has grown fat (the documentation
is approaching 2,000 lines and 10,000 words like a small book).
I think we can improve learnability by focusing on the most
important parts of the API.
I would like to simplify and clean-up the API for t
On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:11 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>> Just to clarify. The following fails in Python 3:
>>
>> sorted([3, 1, 2, None])
>>
>> If you want to compare that two iterables containing heterogeneous types
>> have the same members then it is tricky to implement correctly and
>> asser
On 29/10/2010 23:56, Michael Foord wrote:
On 29/10/2010 23:29, Michael Foord wrote:
[snip...]
Besides de-documenting those four redundant methods,
I propose that assertItemsEqual() be deprecated just like
its brother assertSameElements(). I haven't found anyone
who accurately guesses what thos
On 29/10/2010 23:29, Michael Foord wrote:
[snip...]
Besides de-documenting those four redundant methods,
I propose that assertItemsEqual() be deprecated just like
its brother assertSameElements(). I haven't found anyone
who accurately guesses what those methods entail based
on their method name
On 29/10/2010 23:14, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
The API for the unittest module has grown fat (the documentation
is approaching 2,000 lines and 10,000 words like a small book).
I think we can improve learnability by focusing on the most
important parts of the API.
I would like to simplify and clea
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> That's an average of 4 (if you include .4) or 4.5 months (PEP 6
> specifies 6 months, but some of the parts seem outdated). I think
> releasing each month might be a bit ambitious, but it would be great
> to drive down the release interval
The API for the unittest module has grown fat (the documentation
is approaching 2,000 lines and 10,000 words like a small book).
I think we can improve learnability by focusing on the most
important parts of the API.
I would like to simplify and clean-up the API for the unittest module
by de-doc
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Even if there were no trademark, I think it would be wrong for a
separate project to adopt the same name without agreement from the
original group of contributors. I have never seen a fork which didn't
change the name of the project.
+1
--
Steven
___
For those of you who have not noticed, Antoine committed a patch that
raises a ResourceWarning under a pydebug build if a file or socket is
closed through garbage collection instead of being explicitly closed.
I have started to go through the test suite to fix as many of these
cases as possible, b
Am 29.10.2010 21:54, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed
> releases if python 2.7? This is probably more a question for
> Benjamin but doing sonmight provide better predictability and
> "customer service" to our users. I might like to see mont
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote:
>
>> I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also keeping
>> Python 2 compatibility. This incurs some overhead, and basically means I am
>> still really only using Python 2 features. So in some respects
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 21:54, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases
> if python 2.7? This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing
> sonmight provide better predictability and "customer service" to our users. I
> might like
2010/10/29 Barry Warsaw :
> Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases
> if python 2.7? This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing
> sonmight provide better predictability and "customer service" to our users. I
> might like to see monthly releases b
It certainly doesn't have to.
Sent from my digital lollipop.
On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:54:19 -0400
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases
>> if python 2.7?
>> This is probably more
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:54:19 -0400
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases
> if python 2.7?
> This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing sonmight
> provide better predictability and "customer service" to our users. I
> might l
2010/10/29 Barry Warsaw :
> I had a brief conversation with Michael Foord yesterday and he's writing code
> that works in 2.4 through 3.2, so for *some* code bases, it's tricky and ugly,
> but possible.
If the application does not involve a lot of I/O, 2.4 -> 3.2 support
by using a unique code bas
That's a much better idea!
Sent from my digital lollipop.
On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote:
>
> >I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also keepi
On 10/29/2010 2:41 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12:28AM -0700, geremy condra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
Let's take PyPI numbers as a proxy. There are ~8000 packages with a
"Programming Language::Python" classifier. There are ~250 with "Pr
Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases if
python 2.7? This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing sonmight
provide better predictability and "customer service" to our users. I might like
to see monthly releases but even quarterly would probably b
On 10/29/2010 9:42 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I don't see why we should not welcome a team of new developers who want
to continue working on the 2.x series.
Given the number of issues on the tracker, I think it would be great if
there were some new 2.7-focused developers that would work on fixi
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote:
>
> >I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also
> keeping
> >Python 2 compatibility. This incurs some overhead, and basically means I
> am
> >still really only using
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote:
>I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also keeping
>Python 2 compatibility. This incurs some overhead, and basically means I am
>still really only using Python 2 features. So in some respects, my Python 3.x
>support is on
On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Mark's position is different. His words suggest that he thinks that
> Python.org owes the users something, although if pressed I imagine
> he'd present some argument that more users will lead to development of
> a better language. I thin
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12:28AM -0700, geremy condra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
> > Let's take PyPI numbers as a proxy. There are ~8000 packages with a
> > "Programming Language::Python" classifier. There are ~250 with "Programming
> > Langauge::Python::3". Rou
2010/10/29 martin.v.loewis :
> Author: martin.v.loewis
> Date: Fri Oct 29 20:20:08 2010
> New Revision: 85934
>
> Log:
> Issue #9377: Use Unicode API for gethostname on Windows.
>
> Modified:
> python/branches/py3k/Misc/NEWS
> python/branches/py3k/Modules/socketmodule.c
>
> Modified: python/bra
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12 AM, geremy condra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
> wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
[snip]
> First off, unless you have a lot of information I don't, there's no
> reason at all to believe that Python3's adoptio
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I think people need to stop viewing the difference between Python 2.7
> and Python 3.2 as this crazy shift and view it from python-dev's
> perspective; it should be viewed one follows f
On 10/26/10 7:08 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Comments welcome. Assuming there are no strong objections asking for reversion
of this change, I'll publicise to the wider community in a few days.
It strikes me as a solid, pragmatic solution to a t
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 09:11 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400
> Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
> >
> > Let's say that 20% of the code on PyPI is just junk;
> > it's unfair to expect 100% of all code ever to get ported. But,
> still:
> > with this back-of-the-envelope esti
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:57:54PM +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> > "Infrastructure" sounds to me like code for "money".
>
> No, it's rather "volunteer time". Of course, people keep proposing
> that this should be replaced by hired time that gets paid from
> donations, but all such proposals so
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:41:19 -
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
>
> Brett is speaking for himself here (and he never claimed otherwise!).
> However, decisions about where to allow the use of the "Python"
> trademark are made by the Python Software Foundation.
The point is not to allow the u
> "Infrastructure" sounds to me like code for "money".
No, it's rather "volunteer time". Of course, people keep proposing
that this should be replaced by hired time that gets paid from
donations, but all such proposals so far got stuck at implementation
details (i.e. it's actual work that nobody h
On 02:51 am, br...@python.org wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristj�n Valur J�nsson :
Hi all.
This has been a lively discussion.
My desire to keep 2.x alive in some sense is my own and I don't know
if anyone shares it but as a member of this community I think I'm
allowed to voice it. So, just to clari
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/29/2010 10:21 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg :
>> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>> He's not saying we shouldn't welcome them; we just don't want to it
>>> attached to python-dev.
>>
>> That new team could be part of python-de
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2010-10-22 - 2010-10-29)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues stats:
open2496 (+41)
closed 19519 (+56)
total 22015 (+61)
Open issues with patches: 1
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2010, at 02:28 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
>>I've just checked in a change to logging into the py3k branch (r85835),
>>including doc changes and tests, for providing slightly more flexibility in
>>alternative format styles for logging
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Vinay Sajip
>> wrote:
>>> Comments welcome. Assuming there are no strong objections asking for
>>> reversion
>>> of this change, I'll publicise to th
On Oct 25, 2010, at 02:28 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>I've just checked in a change to logging into the py3k branch (r85835),
>including doc changes and tests, for providing slightly more flexibility in
>alternative format styles for logging.
>
>Basically, Formatter.__init__ gets an extra optional key
On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:34 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
>To put your mind at ease, Barry, I'd not want to do that either :)
Phew! But I wasn't worried, 'cause I know you're not insane. (Though the
fact that you've effectively inherited the email package does bring that into
question. :)
>But by (
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz
wrote:
> I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm still too pessimistic about this
> and I could be wrong. But given the relatively minimal amount of effort
> required to let 2.x bugs continue to get fixed under the aegis of
> Python.org rather
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg :
> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> He's not saying we shouldn't welcome them; we just don't want to it
>> attached to python-dev.
>
> That new team could be part of python-dev, couldn't it ? Not necessarily
> the mailing list, but the team of Python developers. Much like the
>
"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> It's obvious that a large proportion of the existing python-dev'ers will
>> not participate in such a project, but why should we try to stop someone
>> else to work on it ?
>
> I propose to stop this discussion of theoretical projects, and only
> restart it when someone
On Oct 27, 2010, at 09:19 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>In the name of completeness for people not aware of the issue,
>http://bugs.python.org/issue9893 discusses actually removing these
>files in preference to files maintained by others. If Misc/Vim were to
>be dropped we could place a text file much
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg :
>> Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> 2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson :
I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing. But I certainly wasn't thinking
of a new "fork" of python. And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new
3.x features backp
> It's obvious that a large proportion of the existing python-dev'ers will
> not participate in such a project, but why should we try to stop someone
> else to work on it ?
I propose to stop this discussion of theoretical projects, and only
restart it when someone actually proposes to lead such a
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg :
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> 2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson :
>>> I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing. But I certainly wasn't thinking
>>> of a new "fork" of python. And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new 3.x
>>> features backported.
>>> I'm more thinking of
The tests prove that r85874 does not break the build.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> Le 28/10/2010 22:52, anatoly techtonik a écrit :
> > Can anybody summarize the outcome?
> > Is it that renaming BadZipfile to BadZipFile with backward compatible
> > alias and deprecation
Brett Cannon wrote:
> 2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson :
>> I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing. But I certainly wasn't thinking
>> of a new "fork" of python. And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new 3.x
>> features backported.
>> I'm more thinking of a place where usability improvemen
Vinay Sajip yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> need to add, i.e. things which cannot be catered for by release27-maint? Or is
> this just about the *principle* of having a 2.8?
Never mind - I've just picked up the extra posts on this thread, which for some
reason didn't show up in my reader before. Sorry fo
> While maintainers' convenience is a valid valid concern and some level
> of idiosyncrasy is healthy to allow active maintainers to code in
> their preferred style, I think users' convenience should come first
> when it conflicts with that of maintainers. Remember, code is written
> once and read
> Actually I would like code like
> s = socket()
> ...
> header = struct.unpack("i", s)
>
> In other words, struct should interact with files/streams directly, instead
> of
> requiring me to first read a chunk who's size I manually have to determine
> etc.
That is easy to achieve using t
Kristján Valur Jónsson ccpgames.com> writes:
> Let’s move the current ‘trunk’ into /branches/afterlife-27. Open it for
> submissions from people such as myself that use 2.7 on a regular basis and are
> willing to give it some extra love.
Just curious - what specific new features or backwards-in
> Right now, Kristján is burning off his (non-fungible) enthusiasm in this
> discussion rather than addressing more 2.x maintenance issues. If 3.x
> adoption takes off and makes a nice hockey stick graph, then few people
> will care about this in retrospect. In the intervening hypothetical
> half
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400
Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>
> Let's say that 20% of the code on PyPI is just junk;
> it's unfair to expect 100% of all code ever to get ported. But, still:
> with this back-of-the-envelope estimate of the rate of porting, it will
> take over 50 years before a deci
On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think people need to stop viewing the difference between Python 2.7
> and Python 3.2 as this crazy shift and view it from python-dev's
> perspective; it should be viewed one follows from the other at this
> point. You can view it as Python 3.2
55 matches
Mail list logo
