Benjamin Peterson schrieb:
svnmerge is written in Python, so wouldn't it be possible to add
support for maintaining such renaming to that tool ?
svnmerge.py is mostly a wrapper over svn merge, and svn merge can't
handle it, so I don't think is easily possible.
I don't think that an
On 2008-05-18 22:24, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind
doing the renaming in the 2.x branch, but it appears that
the only reason is to get used to the new
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward-
porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in the 2.x branch.
After all, the renaming was approached for Python 3.0 and not
2.6 *because* it introduces major breakage.
AFAIR, the discussion on the stdlib-sig also
Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
| I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward-
| porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in the 2.x branch.
|
| After all, the renaming was approached for Python 3.0 and not
| 2.6
Nick writes:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward-
porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in the 2.x branch.
After all, the renaming was approached for Python 3.0 and not
2.6 *because* it introduces major breakage.
AFAIR, the discussion
Nick writes:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward-
porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in the 2.x branch.
After all, the renaming was approached for Python 3.0 and not
2.6 *because* it introduces major breakage.
AFAIR, the discussion on
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't we just provide a from __future__ import renamed_modules
which then provides all the new name to old name mappings in
some form (e.g. module proxies or whatever) and leave the
existing modules in 2.x untouched ?
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick writes:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward-
porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in the 2.x branch.
After all, the renaming was approached for Python 3.0
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick writes:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward-
porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:08 AM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-05-18 22:24, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind
doing the renaming in the
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:08 AM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-05-18 22:24, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind
doing the renaming in the
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:08 AM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-05-18 22:24, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Perhaps I
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:08 AM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-05-18 22:24, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Perhaps I
On 2008-05-17 16:59, Alexandre Vassalotti wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:05 AM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to bring a potential problem to attention that is caused
by the recent module renaming approach:
Object serialization protocols like e.g. pickle usually store the
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind
doing the renaming in the 2.x branch, but it appears that
the only reason is to get used to the new names. That's a
rather low priority argument in comparison to the breakage
the renaming will cause in the 2.x branch.
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind
doing the renaming in the 2.x branch, but it appears that
the only reason is to get used to the new names. That's a
rather low priority
I'd like to bring a potential problem to attention that is caused
by the recent module renaming approach:
Object serialization protocols like e.g. pickle usually store the
complete module path to the object class together with the object.
They access this module path by looking at the
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:05 AM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to bring a potential problem to attention that is caused
by the recent module renaming approach:
Object serialization protocols like e.g. pickle usually store the
complete module path to the object class together
Errata:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, one solution to this is to use Python 2.6 to regenerate pickle
stream.
... to regenerate *the* pickle *streams*.
It is surely not the most elegant or robust solution, but I could work.
... but *it*
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another solution would be to write a 2to3 pickle converter using the
pickletools module. It is surely not the most elegant or robust
solution, but I could work.
This could be done even for 2.x -- 2.6 to be
Alexandre Vassalotti wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:05 AM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Object serialization protocols like e.g. pickle usually store the
complete module path to the object class together with the object.
The opposite problem exists for Python 3.0, too.
This is
On 10:22 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I brought this up earlier, various people assured
me that it wasn't a problem in practice. I think we're
seeing one situation here where it *is* a problem.
Just my two cents here - experience has taught me that it's definitely a
problem in practice.
22 matches
Mail list logo
