Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-08 Thread Benjamin Peterson
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Dmitry Vasiliev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW, I think the following issues should be also marked as release blockers: Agreed and done. > > - http://bugs.python.org/issue3714 (nntplib module broken by str to > unicode conversion) > - http://bugs.python.org/is

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread James Y Knight
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Adam Olsen wrote: So what does Qt do when given a file name already using those PUA? Looks like they get passed through untouched when decoded, but will get translated into invalid names upon encoding. Well, I'd say that looks like a bug. It should probably decode th

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Barry Warsaw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: I won't be able to cut another release between the 15th and 5th, so at least that one should be 2 weeks. If we don't need the additional rc, then we can release early, which would put us just bef

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Barry Warsaw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: 15-Oct-2008 3.0 rc 2 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 4 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final I've updated PEP 361 and the Google calendar with this schedule, except that the PEP says that rc3 and r

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Barry Warsaw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Barry Warsaw wrote: On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: [Barry Warsaw] So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My suggestion: 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Barry Warsaw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My suggestion: 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Nick Coghlan
Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > >> [Barry Warsaw] >>> So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. >>> My suggestion: >>> 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 >>> 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 >>> 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 >>> 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final >>> Give

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Adam Olsen
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:51 AM, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 7, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>> >>> - Having os.getcwdb isn't much use when you can't even run python in >>> the first place when the current directory has "bad" bytes in it. >> >> That's not true: it

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My > suggestion: > > 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 > 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 > 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 > 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final > > Given what still needs to be done, is t

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Martin v. Löwis
James Y Knight wrote: > or at least fully recognized and documented as a half-baked > solution. I would prefer that, leaving a full resolution to 3.1 (or perhaps 3.2). If we wait long enough, the issue will disappear (a strategy that Sun is apparently taking for Java :-) Regards, Martin _

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread James Y Knight
On Oct 7, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: - Having os.getcwdb isn't much use when you can't even run python in the first place when the current directory has "bad" bytes in it. That's not true: it *is* of much use. Python will live in /usr/bin, which has a nicely-decodable path. Curr

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Facundo Batista
2008/10/6 Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 >> 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 >> 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 >> 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final >> >> Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do we >> need two more betas? > > Yes to both questions. I agree with you h

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-07 Thread Martin v. Löwis
> Here's some I found from a few minutes of futzing around with r66821 of > py3k on Linux. > > - Having os.getcwdb isn't much use when you can't even run python in > the first place when the current directory has "bad" bytes in it. That's not true: it *is* of much use. Python will live in /usr/b

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-06 Thread James Y Knight
On Oct 6, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: I'm not sure we do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "big ticket", issue bytes/unicode filepaths, has been resolved. And looking at the tracker, I only see 18 release blockers. Well, if you mean that the resolution decided upon is to "simply

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed Python 3.0 schedule

2008-10-06 Thread Benjamin Peterson
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My > suggestion: > > 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 > 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 > 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 > 03-Dec-2008 3