On 10 April 2014 02:58, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> What will a lack of provided installers do to Windows support? It's
>> easy enough on Linux to say "either build it from source, or let your
>> upstream package provider build it for you", but AIUI, most Windows
>> users want to get a ready-made
On 10.04.2014 04:16, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Yeah, this was mentioned a few times. I quipped to Nick that Red Hat's
> biggest contribution might be to take over the Windows Installer, but
> didn't bite. :-)
>
> But there's always the PSF. We may try to find some folks we trust with
> relevant ex
Le 10/04/2014 04:09, Senthil Kumaran a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson mailto:benja...@python.org>> wrote:
I consider the security enhancement/feature question to be in the domain
of PEP 466. If security stuff lands in the 2.7 branch, it will get
released
On 9 Apr 2014 22:11, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
>>
>> He implied that it's currently the plan or
In article
,
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> > It's not that I don't think Windows installers are important, but rather
> > that Martin has indicated he is (completely reasonably) not interested
> > in indefinitely making 2.7 installers.
> Y
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson >
> > wrote:
> > > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours,
> >
> > Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson >
> > wrote:
> > > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours,
> >
> > Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 19:09, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> >> Instead dealing 2.7 will just be completely optional for core developers
>
> I was worried about this part, that if bug-fixes are
> optionally back-ported, then we may end up a inconsi
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
>
> He implied that it's currently the plan or that it should be the plan?
>
As you might understand, we c
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> I consider the security enhancement/feature question to be in the domain
> of PEP 466. If security stuff lands in the 2.7 branch, it will get
> released eventually is all I'm saying.
>
Thanks for the response.
>> Instead dealing 2.7 wil
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
>
> He implied that it's currently the plan or that it should be the plan?
>
As you might understand, we c
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:46, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
>
> > Instead dealing 2.7 will just be completely optional for core
> > developers. (The much anticipated vendor support arrives at this point.)
> >
>
> Could you clarify your thoug
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
> > Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours,
>
> Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc, or does that violate other
> policies?
I'm not aware that two digit
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> Instead dealing 2.7 will just be completely optional for core
> developers. (The much anticipated vendor support arrives at this point.)
>
Could you clarify your thoughts a bit on the "completely optional" part.
What if vendors take a rea
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> Planning-on-making-2.7-releases-'til-the-cows-come-home-ly yours,
Past 2.7.9, will you make 2.7.10 etc, or does that violate other policies?
What will a lack of provided installers do to Windows support? It's
easy enough on Linux to sa
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014, at 18:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
He implied that it's currently the plan or that it should be the plan?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https
I think this is pretty much what Nick Coghlan implied at the summit.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> This email is to share idea that has been bouncing around in my head for
> a while about 2.7 releases. Guido's last email containing notes from the
> language summit ma
17 matches
Mail list logo
