> Is it really that bad? Once 3.0 is released, it's not like we're going
> to be patching 2.6 and 3.0 all that much.
And unfortunately so. The 2.5 branch doesn't get the attention that it
should, let alone the 2.4 branch. We will continue to "have" them (even
if only for security patches).
Regard
> I know there's a transition to new IP addresses going on for the
> python.org machines, but Thomas or Sean probably needs to do something
> with the DNS for this.
IIUC, it would be sufficient if these addresses get recognized as local.
Meanwhile, I have disabled the new interfaces.
Regards,
Mar
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
> On Oct 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>> So now that we've released 2.6 and are working hard on shepherding 3.0
>> out the door, it's time to worry about the next set of releases. :)
>
>> I propose that we dramatically shorten our release cycle for 2.7/3.1
Terry Reedy schrieb:
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Fred Drake schrieb:
>>> On Oct 2, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
I intend to set things up so that the docs at docs.python.org are
continually
rebuilt, just like the /dev docs were until now.
>
> Will you do the same for the 3.0
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 12:26:30 pm Nick Coghlan wrote:
(Tangent: the above two try/except examples are perfectly legal Py3k
code. Do we really need the "pass" statement anymore?)
I can't imagine why you would think we don't need the pass statement. I
often use it:
* For
> This may be more complicated than it sounds, because you'd probably
> add a very general requirement-indicating feature to PyPI, not merely
> a 'supports 3.0' Boolean on each record, and requirements are actually
> pretty complicated: alternative packages, specific version numbers...
Can you pro
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:45:27AM +0200, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Barry Warsaw schrieb:
> two problems: The libraries they depend on aren't ported, and the
> KLOC of code they care about are hard and tedious work to port, not
> to mention that it typically isn't viewed as productive work by those
> w
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>
> > This may be more complicated than it sounds, because you'd probably
> > add a very general requirement-indicating feature to PyPI, not merely
> > a 'supports 3.0' Boolean on each record, and requirements are actually
> > pretty complicated: alternative p
Hi,
I posted a bug ticket on bugs.python.org, specifically #3119. Link:
http://bugs.python.org/issue3119
The original issue is that the default Pickler can exceed the maximum
recursion depth for structures that are fairly nested. There's a patch
attached to the ticket that fixes this behavio
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>>> This may be more complicated than it sounds, because you'd probably
>>> add a very general requirement-indicating feature to PyPI, not merely
>>> a 'supports 3.0' Boolean on each record, and requirements are actually
>>> pretty compl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 3, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Wow! I guess release.py is going to get really automated then. =) That
or you are going to manage to con more of us to help out (and even cut
the release ourselves).
release.py is really coming along
Brett Cannon schrieb:
>> Last not least, there should be a *central* location on python.org where
>> specifically all resources on 2->3 transition are collected. Talks,
>> documents, links, and some crucial information many people seem to miss,
>> such as how long the 2.x series will at least be m
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barry Warsaw schrieb:
>> On Oct 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> So now that we've released 2.6 and are working hard on shepherding 3.0
>>> out the door, it's time to worry about the next set of releases.
> Well, since for >95% of the (potential) Py3k users it is more important than
> e.g. the import rewrite in Python (no stab at you intended, Brett), it is
> something someone will have to get around to doing.
>
> I'm not excusing myself; in fact, I'd be happy to work on this, but overall
> the tea
[replying to both Georg and Martin]
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:17 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, since for >95% of the (potential) Py3k users it is more important than
>> e.g. the import rewrite in Python (no stab at you intended, Brett), it is
>> something someone will h
2008/10/4 Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So the mailing list is a good idea. Perhaps it should just be
> python-porting so that it can also be used for people who have
> problems with minor releases?
+1. I'd try to help on that list, also.
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.a
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
This may be more complicated than it sounds, because you'd probably
add a very general requirement-indicating feature to PyPI, not merely
a 's
> Setuptools declares dependencies, but does not add a Python version
> requirement,
> like what was proposed in PEP 345 (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/)
> with a new metadata called 'Requires Python'
>
> Even if the problem is fixed in short term with a Trove classifier,
Why would th
18 matches
Mail list logo
