Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight. There are too many open release
blockers that I don't want to defer, and I'd like the buildbots to churn
through the bsddb removal on all platforms.
I'd like to try again on Friday and stick to rc2 on the 17th.
any news on this
SVN checkout over HTTPS protocol requires password. Is it intentional
or just temporary server issue? I am behind a proxy that doesn't
support PROPFIND requests and I can't test SVN+SSH, because 22 port is
closed.
Site docs keep silence about that HTTPS is used at all. Shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 7, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight. There are too many open
release blockers that I don't want to defer, and I'd like the
buildbots to churn through the bsddb removal on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
From this page:
http://docs.python.org/dev/index.html
I searched for csv and got just one hit:
http://docs.python.org/dev/contents.html?highlight=csv
Shouldn't it have at least matched the docs for the csv module itself, not
just the table of
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Oleg Broytmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning (for
example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and you
can do replication
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Oleg Broytmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
A stable fileformat is useful for long term support, but an evolving
format allows improvements.
Once I upgraded Python on a Windows computer... I think it was
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data
from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.
I built bsddb185, loaded old data, exported it to... I don't remember
now, but I clearly remember I
Barry Warsaw wrote:
(I have a few minor ET fixes, and possibly a Unicode 5.1 patch, but
have had absolutely no time to spend on that. is the window still open?)
There are 8 open release blockers, a few of which have patches that need
review. So I think we are still not ready to release
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind with the whole shelve/dbm.any argument
is that for 3.1 there is nothing saying we can't change shelve and the
dbm package to allow 3rd-party code to register with the dbm package
such that
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 02:35:58PM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind with the whole shelve/dbm.any argument
is that for 3.1 there is nothing saying we can't change shelve and the
dbm package to
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data
from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.
I built bsddb185, loaded old data, exported it to... I don't remember
now,
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data
from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.
I
Unfortunately this advice should have been taken several years
ago. The fact is that there are almost certainly Python users who
rely on the presence of the bsddb module for production work, and
simply removing it without deprecation is bound to upset those users.
Guido
I thought that all that was happening was that BSDDB was becoming a
separate project. If one needs BSDDB with Python2.6, one installs it.
No, not in the way you mean it.
Aren't there other parts of Python that require external modules, such as
Tk?
It's different. BSDDB (the
FWIW, my opinion is similar to how I read Martin's - that if a suitable,
safe patch that cleanly uninstalls can be found, it should be included, but
disabled by default. Personally I'd never use it.
That's my view also (less strict now; I previously would have rejected
it outright, as I
I mean that many Windows use the PATH, and as such, may fail if a new
directory is added to the PATH that contains a DLL they indirectly use.
Then it's just a matter of not putting any DLLs in those directories, isn't
it?
A. It's not just DLLs. Any program invoking CreateProcess might
A cleaner (though still dirty) way to achieve this would be to add a
link to the appropriate python.exe in a directory already on the path
such as c:\Windows\system32
That would be fairly easy to implement. I suppose pythonw.exe wouldn't
need the same treatment, as people won't invoke it
17 matches
Mail list logo
