> On Mar 23, 2014, at 7:03 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> On Mar 23, 2014, at 08:00 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>>
>> I'm unclear how this would be better than just biting the bullet and
>> making a 2.8 release. On the one hand, the 2.7.x number suggests
>> (based on the existing release protocol)
I'm giving AMK the keys to the kingdom right now:
AMK: Feel free to go nuts. Email me your public key
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 24/01/2014 16:37, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>> fwiw, I'm offering the keys/account/etc for getpython3.com to wh
fwiw, I'm offering the keys/account/etc for getpython3.com to whomever
has the time to keep it fresh and up to date.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Wes Turner wrote:
> Hardly marketing documents, but potentially useful nonetheless:
>
> http://docs.python.org/3.4/whatsnew/index.html
>
> https://
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> Never mind. If someone else cares they can propose it. I withdraw.
>
I'll throw writing a PEP for 3.5 to do this following the deprecation
policy on my todo list so 3.4 fixing can move on. I needed to brush up
on my ReST anyway.
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
>
>> On 22.01.2014 14:55, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> As an additional side note, anecdotal evidence and what not, but
>> *every* time I bring this up somewhere I get at least one reply
>> that looks similar to
>> https://twitter.com/ojiidotch
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> Do you really think those people would be making the same complaints
>> if they could restore the previous behavior with a simple boolean flag
>> delivered either via environment
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 5:30 AM, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
>
>> On 22.01.2014 11:56, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 5:51 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>>
On 22.01.2014 11:30, Donald Stufft wrote:
I would like to propose that a backwards incompatible change be made to
> On Sep 28, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> It sounds like a reasonable approach to me.
>
> In terms of naming, would you consider "concurrent.asyncio"? When we created
> that parent namespace for futures, one of the other suggested submodules
> discussed was the standard event l
Email me the name of the repo you want, and your github username
(preferably off list so I don't miss it!) and I will set you up Eli
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Christia
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> Jesse Noller mailto:jnol...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > Why would it help to resolve such an issue (if it is an issue at all!)
> > > for a single person on a private mailing list?
> >
> >
>
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> Jesse Noller mailto:jnol...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > We have one: p...@python.org (mailto:p...@python.org)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's not exactly a public mailing
See: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig
Open archives. As the header says this is for the discussion of CLA/other
issues. If specific legal questions or alterations to Python/the PSF
trademarks, CLA/etc are requested those *must* be sent to p...@python.org for
board overs
On Feb 28, 2013, at 8:03 AM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> Stefan Krah writes:
>
>> Why would [the PSF list] help to resolve such an issue (if it is an
>> issue at all!)
>
> Precisely.
>
> If there *is* a compliance problem, there's nothing to be done before
> talking to the lawyers. Altho
On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:57:36 -0500,
>> Jesse Noller a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou
>>>
On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:57:36 -0500,
> Jesse Noller a écrit :
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:48:24 -0500,
>>> Jesse Noller a écr
On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:48:24 -0500,
> Jesse Noller a écrit :
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's an idea to have a python-legal mailing list for these
>>> topics?
>>>
>>> I don't think it&#x
On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:42 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ + http://opensource.org/
>>licenses/apache2.0.php
>> and why PSF doesn't comply the 4. Redistribution clause from Apache 2.0
>&g
On Feb 27, 2013, at 3:20 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>
> * security by obscurity in legal position of PSF towards contributors
> https://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html
>vs
> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ +
> http://www.samurajdata.se/opensource/mirro
On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:18:35 +0100,
> Christian Heimes a écrit :
>> Am 21.02.2013 08:42, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
>>> Sure, but in many instances, rebooting a machine is not
>>> business-threatening. You will have a couple of minutes' downtim
On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:21:22 -0500
> Donald Stufft wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
It's not a distributed DoS issue, it's a severe DoS vulnerabilities. A
single 1 kB XML document can kill
On Monday, February 11, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:07:50 +0300
> anatoly techtonik mailto:techto...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Guido van Rossum > (mailto:gu...@python.org)> wrote:
> >
> > > Anatoly, stop this discussion *NOW*. I
On Friday, December 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Dear python-dev *and* python-ideas,
>
> I am posting PEP 3156 here for early review and discussion. As you can
> see from the liberally sprinkled TBD entries it is not done, but I am
> about to disappear on vacation for a few we
I think becoming an apple signed developer to get a cert is the best approach.
If anyone wanted to approach apple about open source/non profit gratis
licenses, that would be appreciated.
Otherwise I could do it / fund it from the PSF board side, which I am happy to
do.
I also concur with Raym
More fuel; fire:
http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2012/6/22/hate-hate-hate-everywhere/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%
On Friday, June 8, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:06 AM, (mailto:mar...@v.loewis.de)> wrote:
>
> > I hereby predict that Microsoft will revert this decision, and that VS
> > Express
> > 11 will be able to build CPython.
>
>
>
> And your prediction was right
I'd like to discuss top-posting.
On Monday, March 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2012, at 05:25 PM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>
> > apology: I searched for a few minutes and could not find a code of
> > conduct regarding HTML mail.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure it's written
>
> FWIW, I agree that much of the rhetoric in the current version of PEP
> 414 is excessive.
>
> Armin has given me permission to create an updated version of PEP 414
> and toning down the hyperbole (or removing it entirely in cases where
> it's irrelevant to the final decision) is one of the t
On Saturday, February 25, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> If this can encourage more projects to support Python 3 (even if it's
> only 3.3 and later) and hence improve adoption of Python 3, I'm all
> for it.
>
> A small quibble: I'd like to see a benchmark of a 'u' function implemented
I've been trying to publicize it on twitter, my blog, google plus and
elsewhere.
help welcome.
On Friday, February 10, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd never heard of this until some Dutch geezer whose name I'm now
> forgotten pointed me to it. Had I known about it
On Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > A paper (well, presentation) has been published highlighting security
> > problems wi
On Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A paper (well, presentation) has been published highlighting security
> problems with the hashing algorithm (exploiting collisions) in many
> programming languages Python included:
>
> http://events.ccc.de/co
On Friday, December 9, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
> IF YOU THINK YOU MUST REPLY SOMETHING WITTY, ITERATE THAT THIS HAD BEEN
> DISCUSSED BEFORE, REPLY THAT "IT'S SIMPLY NOT GO'NNA HAPPEN", THAT "WHO
> DOESN'T LIKE IT IS FREE TO CHOOSE ANOTHER LANGUAGE" OR SOMETHING
> SIMILAR, JUST DON'T
On Aug 30, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:29:59 +1000
>> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>>
>>> Anecdotal, non-reproducible performance figures are *not* the way to
>>> go about serious optimisation efforts.
>>
>
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le lundi 29 août 2011 à 13:23 -0400, Jesse Noller a écrit :
>>
>> Yes, it is annoying; but again - this makes it more consistent with
>> the windows implementation. I'd rather that restriction than the
>>
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:03:53 -0400
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>> 2011/8/29 Charles-François Natali :
>> >> +3 (agreed to Jesse, Antoine and Ask here).
>> >> The http://bugs.python.org/issue8713 described
2011/8/29 Charles-François Natali :
>> +3 (agreed to Jesse, Antoine and Ask here).
>> The http://bugs.python.org/issue8713 described "non-fork" implementation
>> that always uses subprocesses rather than plain forked processes is the
>> right way forward for multiprocessing.
>
> I see two drawback
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Nir Aides wrote:
> Another face of the discussion is about whether to deprecate the mixing of
> the threading and processing modules and what to do about the
> multiprocessing module which is implemented with worker threads.
There's a bug open - http://bugs.python
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>> Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for multiprocessing
>> to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move things in the future
>> [0], which would be now.
>
>
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 15:36, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500,
>> Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
>> > 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin :
>> > > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for
>> > > multiprocess
Now that we have the machine, we need to start working on
collecting/organizing the resources needed to get a shared codespeed
system in place. After speaking with various people, we felt that
overloading codespeed-dev, pypy-dev or python-dev with the discussions
around this would be sub optimal. I
I've posted a more expansive entry on my blog:
http://jessenoller.com/2011/06/29/announcing-the-new-speed-python-org-machine/
But the short version, that as discussed at the VM and language
summit, we now have a hosted machine dedicated to the running of
cross-interpreter speed tests, etc. The har
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:47 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> As Jesse has said, there is an RFP in development to improve
>>> python.org to the point where we can self-host blogs and the like and
>>> deal with the associated user account adm
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>>> With respect to Google Blogger, I don't see a good reason to use it as
>>> the platform for the blog.
>>
>> As with any infrastructure, there is a reasonably high cost in
>> changing, as people have become used to a certain way of doing thi
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> I think this social problem of the PEP can only be solved if the CPython
>>> project stops doing the major share of the
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
[snip]
> This PEP has received a lengthy discussion by now, so here's why I think
> it's being fought so heavily by several CPython core developers,
> specifically those who have traditionally carried a large part of the
> optimisation load in
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le dimanche 17 avril 2011 à 09:30 -0400, Jesse Noller a écrit :
>> >
>> > If we want to make official announcements (like releases or security
>> > warnings), I don't think the blog is appropriate. A
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 21:32:48 -0500
> Brian Curtin wrote:
>> > Three weeks after this security vulnerability was *publicly* reported on
>> > bugs.python.org, and two days after it was semi-officially announced,
>> > I'm still waiting for sec
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:36:16 -0400
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>> >
>> > On Apr 15, 2011 3:46 AM, "Gustavo Narea" wrote:
>> >>
>&g
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>
> On Apr 15, 2011 3:46 AM, "Gustavo Narea" wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> How come a description of how to exploit a security vulnerability
>> comes before a release for said vulnerability? I'm talking about this:
>> http://blog.python.org/2011/0
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04/07/2011 07:52 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
>> Personally I think the Gsoc project should just take the pypy suite and
>> run with that - bikeshedding about what benchmarks to include is goi
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 00:36, Anthony Scopatz wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/04/2011 22:41, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:32:24 -0400
>>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>
> Right now,
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Anthony Scopatz wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> Thanks for putting this together. I am a huge supporter of benchmarking
> efforts. My brief comment is below.
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:52 AM, DasIch wrote:
>>
>> 1. Definition of the benchmark suite. This will entail con
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:14:10 -0400
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> >
>> > For the record, I added a page documenting our continuous int
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> For the record, I added a page documenting our continuous integration
> setup at:
> http://docs.python.org/devguide/buildbots.html
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
that's awesome. should we document how to donate/add a buildbot
somewhere in the
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Nick Stinemates wrote:
> This is really great to hear and something I would be hugely interested in
> contributing to.
> Lurking has paid off :)
> Nick
>
Once I get the machine in place, and the team engaged, I am sure
they'll be looking for help. As it stands, th
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Tennessee Leeuwenburg
> wrote:
>> PyPy maintains http://speed.pypy.org/, which provides very clear information
>> about the relative performance of PyPy trunk against some version of cpython
>> (presumably 2.6
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> So... start two mentoring groups, one open, one closed, and see which one
> survives.
I'd rather not. I'd rather walk away from the idea entirely. In fact,
this entire thread is quickly becoming an example of why people
*don't* want to bri
On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Tommy wrote:
> I was kinda hoping that a private list would have much less noise, and would
> serve the actual mentoring better. Maybe a mailing list isnt't the ideal tool?
>
That is a hope I would like to see realized. I don't think we will be changing
the mediu
On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Laura Creighton wrote:
> In a message of Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:14:02 -0400, Jesse Noller writes:
>> Ben,
>>
>> In principle I agree with you - I would like open archives for the
>> specific reasons you cite, but I value the ability f
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Guido van Rossum writes:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Ben Finney
>> wrote:
>> > Surely a forum specifically for mentorship will be more useful if
>> > outsiders can be directed to existing discussions, without needing to
>> > join th
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
>> If you don't want a specific party snooping the site, just block that
>> specific party. Why make a walled garden that *nobody* outside can look
>> into? That undermines the free ex
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> Hello everyone:
>
> I wanted to take a moment to outline another idea which came out of
> PyCon 2011 this year from numerous sources - a Python Core Mentorship
> Program predicated on the idea that Python-Core, and Python as
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:04 AM, wrote:
>>> On 12:03 pm, jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello everyone:
>>>>
>>>&g
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:04 AM, wrote:
> On 12:03 pm, jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone:
>>
>>
>> The new list will also have a closed, members-only archive. After
>> consulting with other core developers, we believe it's easier to ask
>> questions when you don't have to worry about
Hello everyone:
I wanted to take a moment to outline another idea which came out of
PyCon 2011 this year from numerous sources - a Python Core Mentorship
Program predicated on the idea that Python-Core, and Python as a whole
would be served by further lowering the barrier to entry of
contribution,
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:50:53 -0400
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> We are nearly ready to launch the new blog for python-dev.
>
> Is any core dev allowed to post on this blog? (how?)
> Or is there an editorial team dedicated to writing posts?
>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> We are nearly ready to launch the new blog for python-dev.
>
> Cool. But I always thought planet.python.org was a kind of blog for
> python-dev. How will python-dev blog be different? Will add additional
> redundanc
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:33:55 +0100
> DasIch wrote:
>>
>> 3. Several benchmarks (at least the Django and Twisted ones) have
>> dependencies which are not (yet) ported to 3.x and porting those
>> dependencies during GSoC as part of this proje
Some remarks below.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, DasIch wrote:
> Hello Guys,
> I'm interested in participating in the Google Summer of Code this year
> and I've been looking at projects in the Wiki, particularly
> speed.pypy.org[1] as I'm very interested in the current VM
> development. Howev
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Jesse Noller, 20.03.2011 13:51:
>>
>> ...snip
>>
>>> IMHO, taking modules that currently only have a C implementation due to
>>> performance constraints and rewriting them in Cython is a much more
&g
...snip
> IMHO, taking modules that currently only have a C implementation due to
> performance constraints and rewriting them in Cython is a much more
> worthwhile thing to do than adding an alternative pure Python implementation
> that other Python runtimes wouldn't use anyway. And at least Iron
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:32:34 -0400
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>> The reason why there was no mention is probably because no one
>> intimately familiar with Cython was there, and if they were - it was
>> not
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Nick Coghlan, 12.03.2011 12:43:
>>
>> I posted my rough notes and additional write-ups for Wednesday's VM
>> summit and Thursday's language summit:
>>
>>
>> http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-rough-notes.html
>>
>> htt
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 1:45 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>
>> 2011/3/16 Thomas Heller:
>>>
>>> I would like my committer rights to be retracted.
>>>
>>> I have been contributing to Python here and there for 10 years now,
>>> and it was a pleasant experi
As agreed to at the language summit, I have pinged the IronPython,
Jython and PyPy teams for committers on their respective teams who
(do/did not) have commit rights prior to PyCon. These people are:
Jeff Hardy (IronPython)
Alex Gaynor (PyPy)
Carl Friedrich Bolz (PyPy)
Maciej Fijalkowski (PyPy)
An
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis", 08.03.2011 23:47:
I think everything here is as it should be. People who really cared
about forwards compatibility could have known, but factually, most
people don't care enough. Those then learn for the
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> I'm very happy to announce that the core Python repository switch
> to Mercurial is complete and the new repository at
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/ is now officially open for cloning,
> and for commits by those who had commit access to SVN.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:43:27 -0800
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
>>> But I wouldn't be surprised if some people had regrets about the way
&g
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:43:27 -0800
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> But I wouldn't be surprised if some people had regrets about the way
>> the community works (I can recall at least one such case) and it would
>> be useful to learn from those
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou writes:
>
> > Following the example given in the original article, I was considering
> > a single freeform question: "why did you stop contributing after your
> > last patch to CPython?" (of course, that text should be
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> In
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2011-February/001340.html,
> I was asking whether it would be useful to make a survey of past
> contributors, as in:
>
> First, we did a survey of all our past deve
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Now that the language moratorium is lifted, let's make sure to get PEP
> 380 implemented for Python 3.3. I think there are some minor issues to
> be resolved, but I don't think that should stop someone from doing a
> first pass of the impl
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 12:39 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
>>Le dimanche 20 février 2011 à 23:22 +0100, Georg Brandl a écrit :
>>> On behalf of the Python development team, I'm delighted to announce
>>> Python 3.2 final release.
>>>
>>> Python 3.2
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 09:43 AM 1/7/2011 -0500, James Y Knight wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 7, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> > I don't understand why you are attached to this horrible hack
>> > (bytes-in-unicode). It introduces more work and more confusing than
>
On Dec 29, 2010, at 4:54 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 29.12.2010 22:34, schrieb Jesse Noller:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 29, 2010, at 3:49 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>
>>>> If the functionality is not supported then users get an
On Dec 29, 2010, at 3:49 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> If the functionality is not supported then users get an import error
>> (within multiprocessing). However, RDM's understanding is correct, and
>> the test is creating more than supported.
>
> Hmm. The tests do the absolute minimum stuff
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 29.12.2010 18:54, schrieb Jesse Noller:
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"
>> wrote:
>>>>> I would like to know if it should be considered as a release blocker.
&
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FreeBSD 7.2 3.x buildbot is red since some weeks (or months?) because of
> a concurrent.futures failure. The problem is that
> test_concurrent_futures uses many (multiprocessing) POSIX semaphores,
> whereas POSIX semaphores support i
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> I would like to know if it should be considered as a release blocker.
>>> Georg Brandl said yes on IRC.
>>
>> Under the condition that it is within reason to fix it before the
>> release.
>
> What *should* be possible is to disable bui
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:26:53 +
> Michael Foord wrote:
>>
>> Antoine is firmly of the opinion that making TestCase instances
>> unpickleable is a feature...
>
> Apparently you didn't really understand me. I'm of the opinion that
> making
1st, 2010: Talk proposals due.
December 15th, 2010: Acceptance emails sent.
January 19th, 2011: Early bird registration closes.
March 9-10th, 2011: Tutorial days at PyCon.
March 11-13th, 2011: PyCon main conference.
March 14-17th, 2011: PyCon sprints days.
Contact Emails:
Van Lindberg (Conference Chair
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:01:43 -0400
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"
>> wrote:
>> >> Who is doing multiprocessing maintenance these days? I thought Ask
>
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The first 3.2 beta is scheduled by Georg for November 13th.
> What would you think of scheduling a bug week-end one week later, that
> is on November 20th and 21st? We would need enough core developers to
> be available on #pyth
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Who is doing multiprocessing maintenance these days? I thought Ask
>> Solem had been given commit privs for that, but I haven't seen any
>> activity from him; and Jesse is, mostly, absent. Is anyone working on
>> the multiprocessing issu
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> You mean: actively feeling responsible for it? I guess nobody - as for
>> many other modules in the standard library.
>>
>> Or do you mean: who is willing to work on it, in principle?
>
> Both. Originally the module is/was meant to be off
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM, geremy condra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>>>Not to mention; there's a lot to be learned from doing them on both
>>>sides. At work, I
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:52 AM, wrote:
> On 02:47 pm, jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Guido van Rossum
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to recommend that the Python core developers start using
>>> a code review tool such as Rietveld or Reviewboard. I don't really
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I would like to recommend that the Python core developers start using
> a code review tool such as Rietveld or Reviewboard. I don't really
> care which tool we use (I'm sure there are plenty of pros and cons to
> each) but I do think we sh
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I saw the code for PEP 3148 go by on python-checkins the other day. Is
> there anything left to be done on that front, or can the PEP be marked
> Final?
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
Argh, yes :)
___
Python-D
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 3:56 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> I have only done the Python 3-specific changes at this point; the diff is
> here if anybody wants to review, nitpick or otherwise comment:
>
> http://svn.python.org/view/peps/trunk/pep-0333.txt?r1=85014&r2=85013&pathrev=85014
>
> For that matter,
1 - 100 of 347 matches
Mail list logo
