2008/11/17 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0 final and
> 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would mean that Python
> 2.6.1 should be ready on 03-Dec (well, if Python 3.0 is ready then!).
2.6.1 only two months after 2
I need a release manager call on whether or not the proposed resolution
of this issue goes beyond what is acceptable for a bug fix in 2.6.1.
Short version:
- Python 2.5 allowed packages to be executed with -m, but in a broken way
- I disabled the broken way for 2.6, but didn't provide a replacemen
Facundo Batista wrote:
> 2008/11/17 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0 final and
>> 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would mean that Python
>> 2.6.1 should be ready on 03-Dec (well, if Python 3.0 is ready then!).
Le Tuesday 18 November 2008 11:03:02 Facundo Batista, vous avez écrit :
> 2008/11/17 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0 final and
> > 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would mean that Python
> > 2.6.1 should be ready
I haven't seen anyone mention it on this list, and there was one
message on distutils-sig but it seems to have gone ignored [1].
Uploading packages to PyPI seems to be failing since at least
Saturday. I saw a mention somewhere [2] that it would be under
maintenance around this date, so whatever wa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:03 AM, Facundo Batista wrote:
2008/11/17 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0
final and
2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would mean that
Python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0
final and 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That wou
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Actually, I've wanted to do timed releases, though I think monthly is
unrealistic. Maybe every two months is about the right time frame.
Timed releases are nice because everybody then knows when a patch is
due, from developers to downstream consumers.
From my point of vi
I think it crosses the line.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need a release manager call on whether or not the proposed resolution
> of this issue goes beyond what is acceptable for a bug fix in 2.6.1.
>
> Short version:
> - Python 2.5 allowed packages
Sidnei> I haven't seen anyone mention it on this list, and there was one
Sidnei> message on distutils-sig but it seems to have gone ignored [1].
I've passed your note along to the website maintainers.
Thanks,
--
Skip Montanaro - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://smontanaro.dyndns.org/
___
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
>
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Martin suggests, and I agree, that we should release Python 3.0
>>> final and 2.6.1 at the same time. Makes sense to me. That would
I've been implementing bytearray for IronPython and I noticed a couple of spots
where the non-mutating methods of bytearray return self.
In 2.6 but not in 3.0 RC2:
x = bytearray(b'abc')
y = x.replace(b'abc', b'bar', 0)
id(x) == id(y)
In 2.6 and in 3.0 RC2:
t = bytearray()
for i in range(256):
Good catch, this is a bug IMO and we should fix it in 2.6.1 and 3.0rc3.
Mind filing a bug so we can keep track of it?
--Guido
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Dino Viehland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been implementing bytearray for IronPython and I noticed a couple of
> spots where the n
Can someone please add the attached SSH 2 DSA key for me? I want to be
able to help out with the rc tomorrow while I am at work.
-Brett
id_dsa.pub
Description: Binary data
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone please add the attached SSH 2 DSA key for me? I want to be
> able to help out with the rc tomorrow while I am at work.
It's probably best to send this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
"The
Sure, it's now bug 4348 - http://bugs.python.org/issue4348
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guido van Rossum
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:14 PM
To: Dino Viehland
Cc: python-dev@python.org dev
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] bytearray methods
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 18, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Good catch, this is a bug IMO and we should fix it in 2.6.1 and
3.0rc3.
Ah, a /real/ test of the time machine! Though you can avoid the risk
of a rip in the time-space continuum by trying to
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 13:23, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can someone please add the attached SSH 2 DSA key for me? I want to be
>> able to help out with the rc tomorrow while I am at work.
>
> It's prob
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 13:23, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can someone please add the attached SSH 2 DSA key for me? I want to be
able to help out with the rc tomorrow while I am at wor
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 13:23, Benjamin Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Can someone please add the attached SSH 2 DSA key for me? I want t
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 13:47, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 13:23, Benjamin Peterson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTE
>> Should we release 2.6.1rc1, too?
>
> Do we need rc's for point releases?
We have been doing them in the past, a week before the release.
In this case, I could accept a waiver, given that the previous
release acts very well as a release candidate for this release.
Regards,
Martin
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 13:47, Benjamin Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 13:23, Benjamin Peterson
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM, B
> From my point of view bi-monthly release are too much. For a ?.?.1
> release two months are fine because several issues are found by 3rd
> party authors. But after that a release every quarter is sufficient.
>
> * .1 release two months after the .0 release
> * .2, .3, .4 and .5 release every qua
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> I haven't seen anyone mention it on this list, and there was one
> message on distutils-sig but it seems to have gone ignored [1].
Please report PyPI bugs to the PyPI bug tracker in the future,
linked from each PyPI page. I personally don't read distutils-sig
(but catalog-
> Adding a second key is similar to changing the keys. That said, I don't
> think python-committers existed when that FAQ entry was written. It's
> really up to the folks that can add new SSH keys as to which list is
> most convenient for them though.
I had been trying to set up an email alias for
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 15:40, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Adding a second key is similar to changing the keys. That said, I don't
>> think python-committers existed when that FAQ entry was written. It's
>> really up to the folks that can add new SSH keys as to which list is
>>
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> While I'm happy that Barry has automated his part to a high degree,
> my part is, unfortunately, much less automated. I could personally
> automate the build process a bit more, but part of it is also testing
> of the installers, which is manual.
Maybe you could de
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Footnotes:
> [1] Doesn't Windows have a way to send synthetic GUI events to a
> program? There ought to be a way to really script that, as the Python
> installer process presumbly doesn't change much from release t
> > While I'm happy that Barry has automated his part to a high degree,
> > my part is, unfortunately, much less automated. I could personally
> > automate the build process a bit more, but part of it is also testing
> > of the installers, which is manual.
>
> Maybe you could delegate a lot of
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> That's not the issue - I don't mind spending that time. However, it
> means that several hours pass between starting the release process,
> and making the binaries available - during this time, users always
> complain why the Windows binaries are not released yet.
31 matches
Mail list logo
