-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What is the impact in the buildbot architecture?. Slaves must do
anything?. At least they need to have mercurial installed, I guess.
What, as a buildslave manager, must I do to ready my server for the
migration?.
- --
Jesus Cea Avion
Am 21.11.2010 18:27, schrieb Jesus Cea:
What is the impact in the buildbot architecture?. Slaves must do
anything?. At least they need to have mercurial installed, I guess.
What, as a buildslave manager, must I do to ready my server for the
migration?.
Apart from having Mercurial installed
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
I'm at it. In fact, I think I will merge both todo.txt and tasks.txt
into the PEP. It's not more of a burden to update it there, and it's
more visible to the developer community.
The latest checkin was definitely an
Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
2010/11/18 Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/10 18:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
are interested in working on the infrastructure. I
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
2010/11/18 Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/10 18:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of
- date Hg will be available for write access (it should be frozen for
a while, to give the folks doing the conversion a chance to make sure
buildbot is back up and run, commit emails are working properly, etc)
I would target the build slaves to the Mercurial repository already in
the testing
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- date SVN will go read only
Please note that svn cannot be made completely read-only. We've already
decided that versions already in maintenance or security-only mode
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 15:56, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That's enough to make folks like me somewhat nervous as to whether or
not we're actually going to have a usable source control system come
December 12.
Yes, I've been negligent about updating the PEP. I'll try do so next
Am 19.11.2010 08:58, schrieb Martin v. Löwis:
Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
2010/11/18 Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/10 18:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/19/2010 7:50 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
2010/11/18 Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On
Am 19.11.2010 16:00, schrieb Dirkjan Ochtman:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 15:56, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That's enough to make folks like me somewhat nervous as to whether or
not we're actually going to have a usable source control system come
December 12.
Yes, I've been
Am 19.11.2010 15:36, schrieb Martin v. Löwis:
- date Hg will be available for write access (it should be frozen for
a while, to give the folks doing the conversion a chance to make sure
buildbot is back up and run, commit emails are working properly, etc)
I would target the build slaves to
Am 19.11.2010 15:46, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- date SVN will go read only
Please note that svn cannot be made completely read-only. We've already
decided that versions already in maintenance or security-only mode (2.5, 2.6,
2.7, 3.1) will
On Nov 19, 2010, at 06:12 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 19.11.2010 15:46, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- date SVN will go read only
Please note that svn cannot be made completely read-only. We've already
decided that versions already in maintenance
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:41:58 -0500
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Really? I can understand this for security-only branches (commits there will
be rare, and equivalent commits to the Mercurial branches can be made by
others than the release managers, in order to keep history consistent).
I don't understand all the worry about sys.subversion. It's not like
it's useful to anybody else than us, and I think it should have been
named sys._subversion instead. There's no point in making API-like
promises about which DVCS, bug tracker or documentation toolset we use
for our workflow.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 05:50, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
2010/11/18 Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/10 18:32,
Maybe I misremembered Martin's suggestion, and he was only talking about
security releases.
Technically, I was only talking about 2.5. For each branch, the
respective release manager should make a decision. For 2.5 and 2.6,
it's been decided; Benjamin has not yet announced plans how 2.7 and 3.1
I don't understand all the worry about sys.subversion.
Really? For a security release, there should be *zero* chance that it
breaks existing applications, unless the application relies on the
security bug that has been fixed. By zero chance, I mean absolutely
no chance, never. I'm pretty sure
Am 19.11.2010 22:35, schrieb Martin v. Löwis:
I don't understand all the worry about sys.subversion.
Really? For a security release, there should be *zero* chance that it
breaks existing applications, unless the application relies on the
security bug that has been fixed. By zero chance, I
Le vendredi 19 novembre 2010 à 22:35 +0100, Martin v. Löwis a écrit :
I don't understand all the worry about sys.subversion.
Really? For a security release, there should be *zero* chance that it
breaks existing applications,
It should have been clear that my message explicitly excluded
2010/11/19 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
Maybe I misremembered Martin's suggestion, and he was only talking about
security releases.
Technically, I was only talking about 2.5. For each branch, the
respective release manager should make a decision. For 2.5 and 2.6,
it's been decided;
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Am 17.11.2010 08:18, schrieb Georg Brandl:
Am 16.11.2010 19:38, schrieb Jesus Cea:
Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
I've been trying to
Alternatively, b1 should be postponed until after the Mercurial
migration is done.
I think this new feature is not so shocking that it can be used as
an argument to hold up the migration. If you have another reason to
stop the migration please say so; personally I can't wait for it to
Am 18.11.2010 18:32, schrieb Martin v. Löwis:
Alternatively, b1 should be postponed until after the Mercurial
migration is done.
I think this new feature is not so shocking that it can be used as
an argument to hold up the migration. If you have another reason to
stop the migration please
Therefore, I'm concerned that I will have to work out all the details
on my own, just so that I can produce the b2 binaries (says); this is
not something I look forward to.
How much does the binary build process really depend on version control?
I.e., what would be stopping you from making
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/10 18:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
are interested in working on the infrastructure. I wish some of the
people who stated that they can't wait for the migration to happen
2010/11/18 Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/10 18:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
are interested in working on the infrastructure. I wish some of the
people who stated that they can't
Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
2010/11/18 Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/10 18:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
are interested in working on the infrastructure. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/11/10 08:18, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 16.11.2010 19:38, schrieb Jesus Cea:
Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
I've been trying to contact Dirkjan and ask; generally,
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 13:51, Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es wrote:
I can't find the mail now, but I remember that months ago the Mercurial
migration schedule was mid-december. I wonder if there is any update.
I'm still aiming for that date. I've had some problems getting the
test repository together.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/
j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/
Am 16.11.2010 19:38, schrieb Jesus Cea:
Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
I've been trying to contact Dirkjan and ask; generally, I don't
see much connection to the 3.2 schedule (with the exception that
the final
33 matches
Mail list logo
