On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josiah Carlson wrote:
It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of what is
included in the documentation (plus the dictionary interface that
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Josiah Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josiah Carlson wrote:
It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
bsddb is in a very bad
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Josiah Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Invariably, when someone goes and removes a module, someone else is
going to complain, but I used feature X, not having feature X will
break my code. We, as maintainers can then say, if you cared,
maintain it. But I'm
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Josiah Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Invariably, when someone goes and removes a module, someone else is
going to complain, but I used feature X, not having feature X will
break my
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of what is
included in the documentation (plus the dictionary interface that it
supports) shouldn't be terribly
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
Fred Drake wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of what is
included in the documentation (plus the dictionary interface that it
supports) shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 18, 2008, at 2:32 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
We can obviously drop the module for 3.0. For 2.x, should we just
shrug and disable most of the BerkeleyDB tests (maybe just on Windows)
by adding a new resource to enable them? If we're stuck
Nick Coghlan writes:
And downloading pybsddb and installing really shouldn't be all that
difficult :)
It shouldn't be, but lots of enterprise[1] environments will require
qualifying the new package according to corporate standards.
I won't argue that this is a sufficient reason to keep a
On Friday 18 July 2008 07:57:01 am Josiah Carlson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Jul
On 2008-07-18 21:35, Charles Hixson wrote:
Invariably, when someone goes and removes a module, someone else is
going to complain, but I used feature X, not having feature X will
break my code. We, as maintainers can then say, if you cared,
maintain it. But I'm not sure that is the greatest
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brett Cannon wrote:
| On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
| bsddb is in a very bad
Josiah Carlson wrote:
It's entirely possible that I know very little about what was being
made available via the bsddb module, but to match the API of what is
included in the documentation (plus the dictionary interface that it
supports) shouldn't be terribly difficult.
Maybe for new
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Jesse Noller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3375: Guido (thanks guido) looked into this, and while I banged my
head on it a lot yesterday - guido's identified the issue, and now I
need to figure out a fix - help is welcome on this one.
You're welcome. I would have
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Jesse Noller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3375: Guido (thanks guido) looked into this, and while I banged my
head on it a lot yesterday - guido's identified the issue, and now I
need to
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Jesse Noller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Jesse Noller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3375: Guido (thanks guido) looked into this, and while I banged my
head on
test_ssl ... constantly failing on both the trunk and py3k.
I'll take a closer look at this. It's the new test added in lately.
Seems to be working on non-Windows platforms, so I'm guessing it's
some Windows oddity, which I'm not very good at diagnosing. Worst
comes to worst, we can take
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
bsddb is in a very bad shape, as the 2.6 code hasn't been merged into
3k. I somewhat doubt that this gets resolved before the release, so
bsddb users might need to skip
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:37 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
bsddb is in a very bad shape, as the 2.6 code hasn't been merged
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
bsddb is in a very bad shape, as the 2.6 code hasn't been merged into
3k. I somewhat doubt that
22 matches
Mail list logo
