On 13.04.2011 02:07, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without tests?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Alexander Belopolsky
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com wrote:
I was preparing a commit to 3.2 and default branches and mistakenly
used -m insread of -l commit option. As a result, I have
If you had caught the change before merging to default, then hg
rollback
Georg Brandl, 13.04.2011 08:54:
On 13.04.2011 02:07, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
Tres Seaver wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Looking at the pastebin you are using !lv = 2. Why the !? Without it,
it works fine:
I just wanted to make sure I was executing a python statement and not a pdb
alias.
I re-tested without the exclamation mark and still
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:43:39AM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Can you add a Misc/NEWS entry?
Added. Thanks for noticing this.
--
Senthil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
However, I think we are really discussing a theoretical issue here. All the
PEP is trying to achieve is to raise the bar for C code in the stdlib, for
exactly the reason that it can easily introduce subtle semantic
Hi Arc,
I think you should forward this to python-dev. (CCed)
There was a discussion on this over there, so someone should be
definitely interested.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:33:55AM -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
We have a number of students who proposed to port PyPy's benchmarking suite to
Python3
On 4/13/2011 7:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnelstefan...@behnel.de wrote:
I think it would help to point out in the PEP that code that fails to touch
the theoretical 100% test coverage bar is not automatically excluded from
integration, but needs
On Apr 13, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
However, I think we are really discussing a theoretical issue here. All the
PEP is trying to achieve is to raise the bar for C code in the stdlib, for
exactly
Antoine Pitrou, 13.04.2011 02:07:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
Tres Seaver wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without tests?
Well, why do you think tests
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:25:59 +0900, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Lukas Lueg lukas.l...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Any other ideas on how to solve this in a better way?
Have
On 12.04.2011 23:05, nadeem.vawda wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/0010cc5f22d4
changeset: 69275:0010cc5f22d4
user:Nadeem Vawda nadeem.va...@gmail.com
date:Tue Apr 12 23:02:42 2011 +0200
summary:
Fix 64-bit safety issue in BZ2Compressor and BZ2Decompressor.
On 13.04.2011 03:43, senthil.kumaran wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a4d1a3e0f7bd
changeset: 69306:a4d1a3e0f7bd
parent: 69305:35b16d49c0b1
parent: 69299:c8d075051e88
user:Senthil Kumaran orsent...@gmail.com
date:Wed Apr 13 09:38:51 2011 +0800
summary:
Thanks for the feedback. I'll be sure to include more information in my
future commit messages.
Nadeem
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On 07/04/2011, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 07/04/2011 20:18, Robert Collins wrote:
Testtools did something to address this problem, but I forget what it
was offhand.
Some issues were worked around, but I don't remember any comprehensive solution.
The proposed fix is to
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Georg Brandl wrote:
summary:
merge from push conflict.
this message is not quite correct -- there is no conflict involved.
You're just merging two heads on the same branch in order to have
only one head in the master repo.
Okay, got it. I
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:04 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
As I read it, Nick's thought wasn't that distutils2 would help the OP,
but that the OP could help Distutils2 and the community by taking his
use case to the developers and making sure that that use case is
supported
17 matches
Mail list logo
