On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 02:30, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
This is something you need to discuss with the Mercurial project.
See http://mercurial.selenic.com/bts/ and
http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ContributingChanges
There's a lot you can change by just starting a new set of
Am 01.04.2011 03:44, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
2011/3/31 Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
On Mar 31, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le 01/04/2011 01:15, Raymond Hettinger a écrit :
The Hg source viewer needs to be tweaked to improve its usability.
What we've got
Am 01.04.2011 06:02, schrieb Terry Reedy:
On 3/31/2011 8:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:52:23 -0400
Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Here is my proposal for a redesign based on an analysis of my usage ;-).
I have a 1600x1050 (or thereabouts), 20 (measured) diagonal,
Am 01.04.2011 01:12, schrieb R. David Murray:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:29:29 +1000, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:34 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wro=
te:
I agree with this point. =A0The sidebar list of questions is effectively
useless.
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 08:37 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
If I understand the policy correctly, 2.5 and 2.6 are not considered
active branches, so any doc, build or bug fixes are not acceptable.
Actual build fixes may be
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through 3.3, as
soon as possible. Without this, it will be very difficult for anyone on
future Ubuntu or Debian
On 01/04/2011 11:46, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through 3.3, as
soon as possible. Without this, it will be very difficult
On 4/1/2011 6:46 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through 3.3,
as
soon as possible. Without this, it will be very
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:57:53 -0400
Eric Smith e...@trueblade.com wrote:
On 4/1/2011 6:46 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1
On 01/04/2011 13:07, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:57:53 -0400
Eric Smithe...@trueblade.com wrote:
On 4/1/2011 6:46 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of
There's a space missing here, and the link doesn't work.
It does for me. This may depend on the mail reader and whether it parses
the url out in spite of the missing space.
Victor was talking about the rendered HTML, not his email client. :)
Cheers
Am 01.04.2011 13:57, schrieb Michael Foord:
On 01/04/2011 11:46, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through 2.7, and 3.1 through
3..3, as
soon as
On 01/04/2011 13:32, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 01.04.2011 13:57, schrieb Michael Foord:
On 01/04/2011 11:46, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 31.03.2011 19:35, schrieb Éric Araujo:
I would like to apply this patch (or its moral equivalent) to all active,
affected branches of Python, meaning 2.5 through
I don't see any advantage in leaving erroneous docs online even if we
aren't going to do any new releases.
See thread starting at
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103263.html
Regards
___
Python-Dev mailing list
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:37:42 +0100
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
I think I was unclear: I'm not advocating doing doc fixes in security-only
branches; I'm just explaining why it wouldn't even make sense to do these
fixes.
I understood. I was suggesting we modify to allow
On 01/04/2011 13:42, Éric Araujo wrote:
I don't see any advantage in leaving erroneous docs online even if we
aren't going to do any new releases.
See thread starting at
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103263.html
As far as I can tell there was no clear decision there
As far as I can tell there was no clear decision there either. :-)
Not my understanding:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103351.html
Regards
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On 01/04/2011 14:49, Éric Araujo wrote:
As far as I can tell there was no clear decision there either. :-)
Not my understanding:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103351.html
That was about whether the release manager should backport doc fixes
from 2.7 to the 2.6 branch
On Apr 01, 2011, at 02:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
(and, no, I don't think building an old Python on a new Debian/Ubuntu
system is anymore important than other kinds of bug or build fixes;
let's stop implying that Ubuntu is the dominant OS out there, because
it's really not)
For the record, I
On Apr 01, 2011, at 03:07 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
That was about whether the release manager should backport doc fixes from 2.7
to the 2.6 branch and the conclusion was not to bother, which is very
different from saying that individual developers *can't* apply doc fixes if
*they want*.
Of
Am 01.04.2011 14:49, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:37:42 +0100
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
I think I was unclear: I'm not advocating doing doc fixes in security-only
branches; I'm just explaining why it wouldn't even make sense to do these
fixes.
I
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
There are of course other Mercurial-web frontends that are free. hgweb is
just
the first choice because it's included. (Just like Tkinter.)
For example, I was recently pointed to RhodeCode
On 4/1/2011 9:45 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
See thread starting at
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103263.html
As far as I can tell there was no clear decision there either. :-)
I read it as deciding no doc fixes.
(Other than no *need* to bother, which doesn't answer
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2011-03-25 - 2011-04-01)
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 counts and deltas:
open2733 ( -2)
closed 20787 (+69)
total 23520 (+67)
Open issues
On 4/1/2011 6:44 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 01.04.2011 06:02, schrieb Terry Reedy:
would switch. Just forgot here. Multiply everything by 2.4 for cm.
Or by 2.54, if you're using SI cm :)
Then its a good thing I did the conversions with a dual scale ruler ;-).
So the number were accurate.
I
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:47:12 +0200, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 01.04.2011 01:12, schrieb R. David Murray:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:29:29 +1000, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:34 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wro=
te:
I agree with
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:17:27 -0400
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Yeah, I know what I said before but I really am still on the fence about
non-behavior changing fixes. Both sides have valid positions, IMO. :/
Well, how can you be sure it's non-behaviour changing? A bugfix can
always
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:39:59 +0200
Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 01.04.2011 14:49, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:37:42 +0100
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
I think I was unclear: I'm not advocating doing doc fixes in
security-only
branches;
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:39:59 +0200
Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 01.04.2011 14:49, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
Well, I think the tradeoff is simply: do you want to do more work?
(or, given the same amount of
Victor Stinner wrote:
I pushed my faulthandler module into the default branch (Python 3.3).
Since one week, I fixed a lot of bugs (platform issues), improved the
tests and Antoine wrote a new implementation of dump_backtraces_later()
using a thread (instead of SIGALRM+alarm()). It should now
That's *way* better:
https://bitbucket.org/mirror/cpython/src/3558eecd84f0/Lib/linecache.py
Why can't we have that for our primary source viewer.
Would you like to install this, or something else, or change the
templates? If so, please let me know so I can give you access to
dinsdale.
FWIW - I maintain legacy code for python2.4, and 2.5 (mainly 2.5).
[...]
As a result, I'm very much +1 on integrating this patch to previous
versions.
Updating 2.4 is clearly out of question; and I veto changing 2.5 in
that respect.
I develop on Ubuntu (and will probably update to 11.04 in a
I wouldn't say doc fixes are not acceptable, but they are rather pointless
since there won't be any more online docs or released docs for those versions.
That's the reason I don't want to see the in the tree, though - if
people commit something, they expect to see it released at some point.
So
I understood. I was suggesting we modify to allow doc changes that fix
errors and push updated docs *online* (not do fresh releases) and asking
why not do that (other than policy)?
It's too much effort in the release process. I don't actually remember
anymore how to do 2.5 documentation
And I don't see a problem with build fixes. It's not like we're adding
language features. If it makes someone's life easier, then what's the harm?
It's extra work with no volunteer doing it.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
On 4/1/2011 3:52 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
And I don't see a problem with build fixes. It's not like we're adding
language features. If it makes someone's life easier, then what's the harm?
It's extra work with no volunteer doing it.
I understood Barry was volunteering. Certainly if no one
Am 01.04.2011 17:03, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
I think there's no harm in build system or doc fixes that will have
no effect on functionality.
I do believe that the build system changes can actually break things.
The first version of your patch produced additional output on stderr,
which may cause
Am 01.04.2011 21:54, schrieb Eric Smith:
On 4/1/2011 3:52 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
And I don't see a problem with build fixes. It's not like we're adding
language features. If it makes someone's life easier, then what's the harm?
It's extra work with no volunteer doing it.
I understood
On 4/1/2011 9:08 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I envy all of you who only have to learn and use one relatively
sensible unit system.
Me too. But anyone that calls themselves a programmer should be able to
realize that the numbers are proportional and Google happily finds
online conversion
Am 01.04.2011 18:31, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:39:59 +0200
Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 01.04.2011 14:49, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:37:42 +0100
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
I think I was unclear: I'm not advocating
On Apr 1, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
That's *way* better:
https://bitbucket.org/mirror/cpython/src/3558eecd84f0/Lib/linecache.py
Why can't we have that for our primary source viewer.
Would you like to install this, or something else, or change the
templates? If so,
2011-04-01 03:23:10 Victor Stinner napisał(a):
Le 01/04/2011 01:11, Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
I'm rather sick of seeing this warnings on all compiles, so I propose
we enable the -Wno-unused-results option. I judge that most of the
cases where this occurs are error reporting functions,
Le jeudi 31 mars 2011 à 18:35 +0200, Victor Stinner a écrit :
Hi,
I just added a --timeout option to Lib/test/regrtest.py: if a test (one
function, not a whole file) takes more than TIMEOUT seconds, the
traceback is dumped and it exits. I tested it on 3 buildbots with a
timeout of 5 minutes
On Apr 01, 2011, at 09:47 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
FWIW - I maintain legacy code for python2.4, and 2.5 (mainly 2.5).
[...]
As a result, I'm very much +1 on integrating this patch to previous
versions.
Updating 2.4 is clearly out of question; and I veto changing 2.5 in
that respect.
Fair
Even if their servers won't run ubuntu 11.04+ (or something with the
same library paths), their development environments will.
They can also patch the Python releases themselves, or use Ubuntu
packages that someone else made for them (they can probably just install
the old 2.4 packages
On 4/1/2011 7:52 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
necessary, I leave it alone. I think we're still due one last bug fix release
of Python 3.1, right?
Yes, hopefully soon.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
46 matches
Mail list logo
