Hi all,
During the huge thread about PEP 394, a suggestion was made that a
launcher for Python on Windows could be implemented which would allow
for some of the guidelines in that PEP to apply to the Windows version
of Python.
I've attached the first draft of a PEP for such a launcher and
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 03:42, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
5. The parallel evolution of the 2.x and 3.x line meant that the first
version of 2.x with the relevant warning was released only ~7 months
or so before the version of 3.2 where the API was removed
An additional issue that
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es wrote:
On 19/03/11 03:14, Nick Coghlan wrote:
(i.e. start moving towards more of a style of development where code
doesn't land in the main repository until it has been vetted by the
buildbots *first*).
Unfortunately, this is *not*
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:12:19 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a section in PEP8 about __version__ but it serves a slightly
different purpose there:
Version Bookkeeping
If you have to have Subversion, CVS, or RCS crud in your source file, do
it as follows.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:22:42 +0100
raymond.hettinger python-check...@python.org wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/80ff78425419
changeset: 68671:80ff78425419
branch: 3.2
parent: 68665:f832ca852329
user:Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com
date:Fri Mar 18 18:22:28
I do distinctly recall __version__ being standardized for other
purposes too, but I have no idea how to find that reference... It
probably was well before 2000.
Maybe you were thinking about Pydoc, which will display __version__ in a
dedicated section of the doc.
Regards
I have a trivial little documentation patch for csv.rst. I committed it
locally, then I pulled and merged:
cpython% hg pull
pulling from ssh://h...@hg.python.org/cpython
searching for changes
adding changesets
adding manifests
adding file changes
added 94 changesets
hg heads showed my changeset:
changeset: 68585:c63d7374b89a
user:Skip Montanaro s...@pobox.com
date:Sat Mar 19 09:09:30 2011 -0500
summary: Mention RFC 4180. Based on input by Tony Wallace in issue
11456.
I committed. Now:
changeset:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:57:02 +0100, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:22:42 +0100
raymond.hettinger python-check...@python.org wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/80ff78425419
changeset: 68671:80ff78425419
branch: 3.2
parent:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:25:07 -0500, s...@pobox.com wrote:
I have a trivial little documentation patch for csv.rst. I committed it
locally, then I pulled and merged:
Note that if you want doc changes to appear in all the current doc sets
(2.7, 3.2, dev), then you should start with patching
Not all of the ideas below are complementary to each other, some are
either or, to allow different thoughts to be inspired or different
directions to be taken.
Thanks for starting a PEP.
On 3/18/2011 11:02 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
The launcher should be as simple as possible (but no
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
The launcher could be simpler if the Python installer placed versioned
Python executables on the PATH. Unfortunately, historically it hasn't. If
it did, would, or the launcher installer would place them there for
On 19.03.2011 16:30, R. David Murray wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:57:02 +0100, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:22:42 +0100
raymond.hettinger python-check...@python.org wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/80ff78425419
changeset: 68671:80ff78425419
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:25:07 -0500
s...@pobox.com wrote:
I have a trivial little documentation patch for csv.rst. I committed it
locally, then I pulled and merged:
cpython% hg pull
pulling from ssh://h...@hg.python.org/cpython
searching for changes
adding changesets
I've run out of virtual memory on my Ubuntu buildbot today (and I
think the FreeBSD buildbots a few days ago). Those have physically
OOMd/restarted the VM. The Windows buildbots have been giving me
VM warnings, but appear to have gotten through it.
I believe it's the test_crashers test, which
* Is this really PEP material, or will turning the PEP into a regular
spec be suitable?
It's PEP material if it is contentious, which I believe it is.
I, for example, will find issues with it if the implementation uses
CreateProcess at some point - the launcher should IMO run Python
directly,
I have a trivial little documentation patch for csv.rst. I committed
it locally, then I pulled and merged:
RDM Note that if you want doc changes to appear in all the current doc
RDM sets (2.7, 3.2, dev), then you should start with patching 3.2 and
RDM merge it into
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:45:10 -0400
David Bolen db3l@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that the failing build is automatically retried when I
try to reconnect the buildbot, so it just get rights into trouble
again. The comment in that build's changeset looks like it might be
getting rolled
On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:25:07 -0500
s...@pobox.com wrote:
The dev guide says something about collapsing changesets. Is that
collapsing commits within a changeset or collapsing multiple changesets
(whatever that might be)? Do I need this
Antoine == Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net writes:
Antoine On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:25:07 -0500
Antoine s...@pobox.com wrote:
I have a trivial little documentation patch for csv.rst. I committed it
locally, then I pulled and merged:
cpython% hg pull
I suggested at python-ideas a way that the declaration of abstract
properties could be improved to support the decorator syntax:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2011-March/009411.html .
A relatively small change to the property builtin would allow
properties to identify themselves as
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net writes:
I've enabled the button to cancel pending builds in the Web UI. You
should be able to bring back the Ubuntu slave online. You can do the
same (cancel pending builds) for other slaves if needed.
Thanks. Is that a single button somewhere or do I need
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:41:51 -0400
David Bolen db3l@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. Is that a single button somewhere or do I need to cancel the
pending builds individually when there are several waiting?
There seems to be a single button.
In any event it looks like the retries of the failing
I think if we're going to require a complex workflow, then we're
going to have to expect a lot of questions. And those questions
shouldn't be brushed-off with go read the tutorial, we have no time
for you or words to that effect.
And indeed, I think this (asking questions) is just about the
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
To the extent the buildbots are not overloaded, this strategy will
indeed save developer time, as most changes are more or less
independent of each other (that's why automated merging works at all
well), and most of
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I, for example, will find issues with it if the implementation uses
CreateProcess at some point - the launcher should IMO run Python
directly, rather than creating a new process. This, in turn, will
probably mean that
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I suspect, however, that as soon as something else commits to the 3.x
branch and causes a new test, that test_crashers (presumably from
changeset 9c6dcb5d8f01) will likely just take the slaves down again.
The test is
Am 19.03.2011 23:51, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I, for example, will find issues with it if the implementation uses
CreateProcess at some point - the launcher should IMO run Python
directly, rather than creating a new
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:05 AM, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Sorry, this workflow is still new and hugely confusing to me. To make a
simple edit to csv.rst I needed to do a couple pulls and merges, local
commits, resolve the same conflict multiple times, get rebuffed when I first
pushed because
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Am 19.03.2011 23:51, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de
wrote:
I, for example, will find issues with it if the implementation uses
CreateProcess at some point -
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
So I'd encourage everybody to keep asking questions, and request that
they are answered in a polite manner, even if the one answering thinks
that the same question is already answered in some documentation.
Thanks. I
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:32:53 -0700
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
remote: File /data/buildbot/master/master.cfg, line 87, in
perspective_addChange
remote: changedict['category'] = branch_to_category[changedict['branch']]
remote: exceptions.KeyError: '2.5'
remote: ]
That's
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
+1. Just as I hope for the Python 3-4 transition, I hope that whatever
comes along next has a better transition strategy. That would make it
really hot.
Given that the hardest part of any transition is updating
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't want to give up completely on the idea just yet, but I'll
experiment in the sandbox before I turn it back on.
If you get to that point again, I'd also be willing to pick a time to
manually check out the right branch or whatever and try it
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:25:07 -0500
s...@pobox.com wrote:
The dev guide says something about collapsing changesets. Is that
collapsing commits within a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:44 AM, David Bolen db3l@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't want to give up completely on the idea just yet, but I'll
experiment in the sandbox before I turn it back on.
If you get to that point again, I'd also be willing to pick a
Skip wrote:
Antoine wrote:
94 changesets? If you want to avoid risking conflicts, you should hg
pull and hg up (or hg pull -u) before you start working on
something (just like you svn up'ed before working on something).
Sorry, this workflow is still new and hugely confusing to me. To
I made a test change to the 2.5 README and merged it into 2.6 and 2.7.
Then I pushed. It *seems* to have worked, but I also got some
traceback:
Oops. I wouldn't have expected that tracebacks propagate that far back.
This was your hg client talking to the remote hg client executing a
post-push
Le lundi 14 mars 2011 à 15:36 -0400, David Bolen a écrit :
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net writes:
I suggest you try http://code.google.com/p/bbreport/, which provides a
very nice command-line interface.
Speaking of bbreport, I sometimes use the published page on that site
Am 20.03.2011 00:39, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:32:53 -0700
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
remote: File /data/buildbot/master/master.cfg, line 87, in
perspective_addChange
remote: changedict['category'] = branch_to_category[changedict['branch']]
remote:
In article
aanlktiktvxsrmlw0z8ifvz3lkaedv8vui_a4f-oci...@mail.gmail.com,
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Mercurial isn't really all that different, but it's distributed nature
means it want to keep track of even minor things like the local
whitespace fixes and the merger of your
Thanks for the feedback!
On 19/03/2011 7:44 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Not all of the ideas below are complementary to each other, some are
either or, to allow different thoughts to be inspired or different
directions to be taken.
Thanks for starting a PEP.
On 3/18/2011 11:02 PM, Mark Hammond
On 20/03/2011 4:15 AM, Dj Gilcrease wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Glenn Lindermanv+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
2) If the launcher provides command line options for the benefit of
launching interactive Python interpreters, those command line options can
have data puns with script
On 20/03/2011 5:49 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
* Is this really PEP material, or will turning the PEP into a regular
spec be suitable?
It's PEP material if it is contentious, which I believe it is.
Of course it is - this is python-dev wink.
I, for example, will find issues with it if the
Ned Deily n...@acm.org writes:
As a side note, if you are prone to accidentally adding extra
whitespace (like I am), you can add the whitespace check hook into
your local copy of Mercurial so that you will be warned about
whitespace problems immediately when you commit things to your local
Out of curiosity, what is your objection to having the child process?
One of the problems is that parent process will not be able to kill
launched script. Simply doing TerminateProcess will kill the launcher,
leaving interpreter running. This can be partially fixed with job
objects, though.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:53:11 -0500, s...@pobox.com wrote:
I have a trivial little documentation patch for csv.rst. I committed
it locally, then I pulled and merged:
RDM Note that if you want doc changes to appear in all the current doc
RDM sets (2.7, 3.2, dev), then you
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:33:00 +0100, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:24:26 -0400
R. David Murray rdmurray at bitdance.com wrote:
It would be great if rebase did work with share, that would make a
push race basically a non-issue for me.
rebase as well as strip destroy some history,
48 matches
Mail list logo
