Barry Warsaw writes:
> Python 21.12 anyone? :)
Well, for one thing we know that version 42 will be perfect! With
current versioning policy, it will take a loong time to get
there
Steve
--
Associate Professor Division of Policy and Planning Science
http://turnbull/sk.tsu
As you may guess from the silence, it may be hard to get a definitive
answer to this question -- PEP 384's author has stopped actively
participating in the Python community and I'm not sure if any core
developers currently consider themselves to be the "guardians of the ABI".
That said, from a qui
Can anyone enlighten me on what the expected time-line is for reviewing
pull requests made on 3.8.
I made a few simple fixes in Early March - and I understand everyone is
busy.
What is the time line and cut off dates for backports to 3.7 and 3.6.
I also made a documentation change (based on
Oh my! ;)
So, after the previous discussion about when __contains__ should raise TypeError instead of returning False, it seems
there are a couple cases where a TypeError should be raised now:
1) non-enum-instance in EnumClass
2) anything in enum_instance
3) non-flag-instance in flag insta
> Modifying GitHub Labels is only available to people with commit privs and,
> IIRC, Skip asked to drop his commit privs a few years ago (although I'm sure
> we would all be happy to welcome him back!).
Alas, then I would feel some obligation to be semi-responsive to buggy
things in areas where
> You created the PR from your local python repository master branch. I have
> done this, with negative consequences. I believe you will find life with
> git easier if you never edit your master branch, or at least, never make
> local commits to it, and only commit to and create PRs from special-
On Apr 5, 2018, at 14:48, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 4/5/2018 5:47 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>>> There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one with a
>>> PR in need of review for 3.6+.
>> I rejected one (which assumed everyone now uses a python-aware gdb),
>> commented on anot
On 4/5/2018 5:47 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one with a PR
in need of review for 3.6+.
I rejected one (which assumed everyone now uses a python-aware gdb),
commented on another (ceval.c-related name changes in several
commands), an
+1. Thanks!
Which tests?
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like to share the story of a critical security bug with you. Contrary
> to other issues in TLS/SSL, it's a story with happy ending. Nobody was
> harmed. The bug was fixed before it affected the general pop
On Apr 5, 2018, at 12:35, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 02:49 Skip Montanaro wrote:
>> > There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one with
>> > a PR in need of review for 3.6+.
>>
>> I rejected one (which assumed everyone now uses a python-aware gdb),
>> co
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 02:49 Skip Montanaro wrote:
> > There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one
> with a PR in need of review for 3.6+.
>
> I rejected one (which assumed everyone now uses a python-aware gdb),
> commented on another (ceval.c-related name changes in sever
Nice work! Something to add to our "finding C compiler bugs" list of
accomplishments. 😁
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 13:39 Christian Heimes, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like to share the story of a critical security bug with you. Contrary
> to other issues in TLS/SSL, it's a story with happy ending. Nobody was
>
> There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one with a
> PR in need of review for 3.6+.
I rejected one (which assumed everyone now uses a python-aware gdb),
commented on another (ceval.c-related name changes in several
commands), and created a PR for third (documentation fo
13 matches
Mail list logo
