Guido van Rossum schrieb:
>>> Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I
>>> don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do
>>> care about it having 2.6.
>>
>> I'm not really sure what good that would do us unless we wanted to
>> bring 3.0 back to the
On 2008-09-09 02:49, brett.cannon wrote:
> Author: brett.cannon
> Date: Tue Sep 9 02:49:16 2008
> New Revision: 66321
>
> Log:
> warnings.catch_warnings() now returns a list or None instead of the custom
> WarningsRecorder object. This makes the API simpler to use as no special
> object
> must b
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Sure, we lose the ability to add last-minute -3 warnings. But I think
> that's a pretty minor issue (and those warnings have a tendency to
> subtly break things occasionally, so we shouldn't do them last-minute
> anyway).
Hey, if we catch all the things that need -3 warni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Raymond> With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
> Raymond> to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
> Raymond> won't become useless on Windows builds.
>
> My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 2008-09-09 02:49, brett.cannon wrote:
>> Author: brett.cannon
>> Date: Tue Sep 9 02:49:16 2008
>> New Revision: 66321
>>
>> Log:
>> warnings.catch_warnings() now returns a list or None instead of the custom
>> WarningsRecorder object. This makes the API simpler to use as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
It's also a bug that was introduced by the late API changes made to
WarningsRecorder in r66135 (when WarningsRecorder was moved from
test.test_support to warnings to make it officially supported for us
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st
goal. We
have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I
don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do
care about it having 2.6.
I've talked with my contact at M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Even if I can't contribute very much at the moment, I'm still +1 to
that.
I doubt Python would get nice publicity if we released a 3.0 but had
to
tell everyone, "but don't really use it yet, it may
Barry> 3777 long(4.2) now returns an int
Looks like Amaury has already taken care of this one.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/opt
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> It's also a bug that was introduced by the late API changes made to
>> WarningsRecorder in r66135 (when WarningsRecorder was moved from
>> test.test_support to warnings to make it officially supported for use
>> outside the
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
>> beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
>> to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
>> u
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 3781 warnings.catch_warnings fails gracelessly when recording warnings
I just assigned this one to myself - I'll have a patch up for review
shortly (the patch will revert back to having this be a regression test
suite only feature).
Cheers,
Nick.
___
I've been trying out the new ssl module, and I love it so far, except for
the way it accepts private keys and certificates. It accept them only as
paths to their location on the file system, which I believe means that a
server can only support SSL if it has read permission to its private key
file
> It accept them only as
> paths to their location on the file system, which I believe means that a
> server can only support SSL if it has read permission to its private key
> file when client connections arrive. This is a problem for servers that
> bind to their socket and drop privileges as soo
On Tue, September 9, 2008 12:49 pm, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> IMHO, this severely limits the new ssl module's utility, and discourages
>> good security practices.
>
> Please file a bug report. A bug report with a patch and tests would
> be even better :-). Assign it to me.
I filed one, but the bug
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Trent Nelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 05:55:13PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> Trent, are you available to look at the ?spurious? timeout failures in
>> bsddb replication code in the Windows buildbot?.
>>
>> Ten seconds timeout should be plen
19 matches
Mail list logo
