> On 4 Feb 2019, at 03:10, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>>
>> Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed an
On Feb 3, 2019, at 18:10, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> FWIW, with dataclasses we decided to get the PR committed early, long before
> most of the tests and all of the docs. The principle was that bigger changes
> needed to go in as early as possible in the release cycle so that we could
> thor
On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
Simply put: no. There have been a number of reactionary comments in the
last 16 hours but no attempt to reach out to me directly during that time.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:12 PM Raymond Hettinge
I am attempting to do the right thing and am following the advice of other
core devs in what I have done thus far.
Borrowing heavily from what I've added to issue35813 just now:
This work is the result of ~1.5 years of development effort, much of it
accomplished at the last two core dev sprints.
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>
> Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed and make
> several suggestions.
I think the PR sat in a stable stat
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
Please work *with* Davin on this one.
It was only recently that you edited his name out of the list of maintainers
for multiprocess
On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed and
make several suggestions.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Pytho
Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:49 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think this is now up to the 3.8 release manager.
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:34 PM Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2019 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'd l
I think this is now up to the 3.8 release manager.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:34 PM Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 2/3/2019 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
> >
> > The reason is
On 2/3/2019 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
The reason is simple: [over 1000 lines not reviewed, no tests, no docs]
Aside from the technical reasons Antoine gave, which I agree with, I
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 23:22:25 +0100
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
>
> The rules to decide what goes where have been discussed in the issues which
> created Include/cpython/ and the issue moving more headers to
> Include/internal/.
>
> In short, internal/ should not be used outside CPython co
On Feb 3, 2019, at 13:03, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
>
> The reason is simple: the PR isn't complete, it lacks docs and tests.
> It also didn't pass any review (this was pointed by Ronald), eve
Hi Antoine,
The rules to decide what goes where have been discussed in the issues which
created Include/cpython/ and the issue moving more headers to
Include/internal/.
In short, internal/ should not be used outside CPython codebase. In Python
3.7, these headers were even not installed. I chose t
Hello,
I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
The reason is simple: the PR isn't complete, it lacks docs and tests.
It also didn't pass any review (this was pointed by Ronald), even
though it adds 1300 lines of code. No programmer
But in practice the distinction doesn't seem very conclusive. Some
internal APIs end up in either of those two directories without any
clear reason why.
Regards
Antoine.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 11:10:16 -0500
Ammar Askar wrote:
> This is the discussion where it was named:
> https://discuss.pytho
This is the discussion where it was named:
https://discuss.python.org/t/poll-what-is-your-favorite-name-for-the-new-include-subdirectory/477?u=ammaraskar
and the bug explaining the motivation: https://bugs.python.org/issue35134
>(and why the additional "pycore_XXX.h" naming convention for some oft
Hello,
Can someone explain why we have two separate directories
Include/internal and Include/cpython? What is the rule for declaring an
API inside one or another?
At first sight, it seems to me we're having gratuitous complication
here. For example, I notice that PyFloat_Fini() is declared in
17 matches
Mail list logo
