On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:56:18 -0300
Joannah Nanjekye wrote:
> > why doesn't it get merged?
>
> The last significant discussion from a core dev on the most relevant PR
> here: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/4819
> shows that Antoine was familiarizing himself with the feature and had adde
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 9:34 AM wrote:
> If this doesn't get fixed, doesn't that mean the Python review process is
> flawed? Sure, Python is an open source project and many people just work in
> their free time. But this doesn't really apply here, does it? The bugfix is
> available. Only a review
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 10:38 AM wrote:
> I just stumbled upon the following issue and subsequent pull request. It
> is a very small bugfix. There is currently a bug in Python and this pull
> request fixes it. It's not a new feature or an enhancement, it is a bugfix!
> Yet, it doesn't get reviewe
As specifically to the flaws in our workflow and the backlog, this is exactly
what the Developer-in-Residence program was designed to address:
https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-psf-is-hiring-developer-in.html
Stay tuned!
-Barry
> On Jun 29, 2021, at 09:56, Joannah Nanjekye wrote:
>
> >
> why doesn't it get merged?
The last significant discussion from a core dev on the most relevant PR
here: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/4819
shows that Antoine was familiarizing himself with the feature and had added
it to their to do list.
Merging something is also a responsibility to
The Steering Council discussed this topic at our meeting yesterday. We have
some discomfort about the changes to Enum’s str and repr in Python 3.10, both
in the specific changes and in the way the changes were decided on. No knock
on Ethan or others who participated in those decisions, it’s ju
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:36 AM wrote:
>
> I just stumbled upon the following issue and subsequent pull request. It is a
> very small bugfix. There is currently a bug in Python and this pull request
> fixes it. It's not a new feature or an enhancement, it is a bugfix! Yet, it
> doesn't get revi
I just stumbled upon the following issue and subsequent pull request. It is a
very small bugfix. There is currently a bug in Python and this pull request
fixes it. It's not a new feature or an enhancement, it is a bugfix! Yet, it
doesn't get reviewed, nor merged. And this has been going on since
On Jun 29, 2021, at 08:27, Mark Shannon wrote:
>
> I was expected the announcement of a BDFL delegate for PEP 657, as the author
> is a steering council member.
PEP Delegates are not required, even when the PEP author is an SC member.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with Op
Also, regarding startup times. Here are our benchmarks, measured with Linux
perf (https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page)
* Importing all the standard library without PEP 657:
Performance counter stats for './python import_all_stdlib.py' (500 runs):
303,78 msec task-clock
> I was expected the announcement of a BDFL delegate for PEP 657, as the
author is a steering council member.
Just to clarify this: as I was the author I didn't get to vote on the
approval or rejection of the PEP. Also, there is nowhere that I know where
this situation requires a BDFL delegate lik
Hi,
I was expected the announcement of a BDFL delegate for PEP 657, as the
author is a steering council member.
It seems that a PEP submitted by a SC member has been accepted by the SC
with seemingly no external review.
PEP 657 is likely to cause significant worsening of start up time and
12 matches
Mail list logo
