On 08/14/2013 09:27 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
For enums, I believe they should be formatted like their
base types (so !s and !r will show the enum name, anything without
coercion will show the value) .
I agree. While one of the big reasons for an Enum type was the pretty
str and repr, I don't
On 08/20/2013 11:15 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 08/14/2013 09:27 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
For enums, I believe they should be formatted like their
base types (so !s and !r will show the enum name, anything without
coercion will show the value) .
I agree. While one of the big reasons for an
Hi Tim,
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
Try running hg verify -v - these warnings only appear when verify is
run in verbose mode.
Indeed. Ignore what I said then about a broken copy of the
repository: any copy will show these three warnings, and they
On 21/08/2013 1:19am, Victor Stinner wrote:
2013/8/21 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org:
Also, are you sure the things returned by socket.fleno() are really Windows
handles? I thought they were some other artificial namespace used just by
sockets.
(You know what? I know understand and love
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
[Tim, wondering why the 3.2 branch isn't inactive]
...
What is gained by _not_ merging here? I don't see it.
[Antoine Pitrou]
Perhaps Georg doesn't like merges? ;-)
I suppose what's gained is one less command to
2013/8/21 Richard Oudkerk shibt...@gmail.com:
On 21/08/2013 1:19am, Victor Stinner wrote:
I don't know if a socket handle is similar to file handles or if they
are specials. At least, GetHandleInformation() and
SetHandleInformation() functions, used by
os.get/set_handle_inheritable(), accept
On 21/08/2013 1:50pm, Victor Stinner wrote:
2013/8/21 Richard Oudkerk shibt...@gmail.com:
On 21/08/2013 1:19am, Victor Stinner wrote:
I don't know if a socket handle is similar to file handles or if they
are specials. At least, GetHandleInformation() and
SetHandleInformation() functions, used
[Tim, wondering why the 3.2 branch isn't inactive]
...
So let's try a different question ;-) Would anyone _object_ to
completing the process described in the docs: merge 3.2 into 3.3,
then merge 3.3 into default? I'd be happy to do that. I'd throw away
all the merge changes except for
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
[Tim, wondering why the 3.2 branch isn't inactive]
...
So let's try a different question ;-) Would anyone _object_ to
completing the process described in the docs: merge 3.2 into 3.3,
then merge 3.3 into default?
Le 21/08/2013 14:22, Tim Peters a écrit :
BTW, it's not quite a null-merge. The v3.2.5 release tag doesn't
currently exist in the 3.3 or default .hgtags files. So long as 3.2
has a topological head, people on the 3.3 and default branches won't
notice (unless they look directly at .hgtags -
[Brett]
...
After reading that sentence I realize there is a key not missing: I see
no reason NOT to help visibly shutter the 3.2. branch IOW I say do the
null merge. Sorry about that.
No problem! Since I've been inactive for a long time, it's good for
me to practice vigorously
[Tim]
BTW, it's not quite a null-merge. The v3.2.5 release tag doesn't
currently exist in the 3.3 or default .hgtags files. So long as 3.2
has a topological head, people on the 3.3 and default branches won't
notice (unless they look directly at .hgtags - they can still use
v3.2.5 in hg
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:34:33 -0500, Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
[Brett]
...
After reading that sentence I realize there is a key not missing: I see
no reason NOT to help visibly shutter the 3.2. branch IOW I say do the
null merge. Sorry about that.
No problem! Since
On 8/21/2013 4:52 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:34:33 -0500, Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
[Brett]
...
After reading that sentence I realize there is a key not missing: I see
no reason NOT to help visibly shutter the 3.2. branch IOW I say do the
null merge.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:59:36 -0400, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 8/21/2013 4:52 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:34:33 -0500, Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
[Brett]
...
After reading that sentence I realize there is a key not missing: I see
no reason
[Tim]
...
Here's what I intend to do (unless an objection appears):
hg up 3.3
hg merge 3.2
# merge in the v3.2.5 tag definition from .hgtags,
# but revert everything else
hg revert -a -X .hgtags -r .
hg resolve -a -m
hg diff # to ensure that only the v3.2.5 tag in .hgtags changed
hg
On 22 August 2013 05:34, Tim Peters tim.pet...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone know a reason not to do:
hg -y merge --tool=internal:fail 3.2
instead? I saw that idea on some Hg wiki.
That would be from
17 matches
Mail list logo
