On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 00:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I think it's fair to say that the project currently rests, lacking
> a project lead. The most recent timeline is that conversion should
> be completed by PyCon, and, failing that, should start at PyCon.
It's not exactly resting; I've been
Am 17.02.2011 23:19, schrieb Santoso Wijaya:
> Speaking of, what is the current status and timeline on the move to
> Mercurial?
I think it's fair to say that the project currently rests, lacking
a project lead. The most recent timeline is that conversion should
be completed by PyCon, and, failing
On 17/02/2011 22:01, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
For the 3.2 series, I think living with the ambiguity for another 6
months or so (however long it is until 3.2.1 is released) is the
better choice. There are enough parts of the release process that
in
Speaking of, what is the current status and timeline on the move to
Mercurial?
~/santa
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Victor Stinner <
victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> wrote:
> Le mardi 15 février 2011 à 09:30 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> > I'm going to perform a Debian upgrade of svn.py
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> For the 3.2 series, I think living with the ambiguity for another 6
> months or so (however long it is until 3.2.1 is released) is the
> better choice. There are enough parts of the release process that
> involve the version number that we *re
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Actually, to me, the confusion is slightly worse, and the reason to change
> slightly stronger, than I initially explained. Python x.y is a version of
> the *language*. CPython x.y.z is an occasional marked release of an
> *implementation*.
>
>
On 2/17/2011 1:36 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
'x.y' is known to be ambiguous and confusing.
Not really.
Actually, to me, the confusion is slightly worse, and the reason to
change slightly stronger, than I initially explained. Python x.y i
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:20, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Agreed. Although better to defer it to 3.3.0 at this point.
+1.0.0 for that.
Yes, it's confusing, but it's going to be even more confusing if it's
called 3.2 sometimes and 3.2.0 sometimes.
--
Lennart Regebro: http://regebro.wordpress.com/
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:52:16 -0800
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:34, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
> >
> > 'x.y' is known to be ambiguous and confusing.
> >
> > In most actual usages, I believe, it refers to the latest
