On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> Nick and Brett share the opinion that some code cleanups can be
> considered bugfixes, whereas MvL, Barry and Raymond defend that we never
> know what can get broken and it’s not worth risking it.
>
> I have added a comment on #13283 (removal of
Urgh. I guess that was already answered. Guess this'll teach me not to
reply to a thread before waiting for ALL the messages to download over a
low-bandwidth connection... (am on the road at the moment and catching up
on stuff in spare cycles - sorry for the noise)
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:24
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 30 October 2011 18:04, Ned Deily wrote:
> > Has anyone analyzed the current packages on PyPI to see how many provide
> > binary distributions and in what format?
>
> A very quick and dirty check:
>
> dmg: 5
> rpm: 12
> msi: 23
> dumb: 132
>
On 11/4/2011 3:39 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Is it worth the hassle? We can just port our existing error handlers,
and I guess the few third-party error handlers written in C (if any)
can bear the transition.
That was my question exactly. As the author of PEP 393, I was leaning
towards full b
On 11/4/2011 4:25 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 22.21, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>> On 11/4/2011 4:08 PM, raymond.hettinger wrote:
>>
>>> - .. note::
>>> + Like file objects, shelve objects should closed explicitly to assure
>>> + that the peristent data is flushed to disk.
>> Missing "b
On 04/11/2011 22.21, Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 11/4/2011 4:08 PM, raymond.hettinger wrote:
- .. note::
+ Like file objects, shelve objects should closed explicitly to assure
+ that the peristent data is flushed to disk.
Missing "be" there, I think: "should be closed".
Eric.
And on the n
On 11/4/2011 4:08 PM, raymond.hettinger wrote:
> - .. note::
> + Like file objects, shelve objects should closed explicitly to assure
> + that the peristent data is flushed to disk.
Missing "be" there, I think: "should be closed".
Eric.
___
Pytho
Le vendredi 4 novembre 2011 18:23:26, martin.v.loewis a écrit :
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/9191f804d376
> changeset: 73353:9191f804d376
> parent: 73351:2bec7c452b39
> user:Martin v. Löwis
> date:Fri Nov 04 18:23:06 2011 +0100
> summary:
> Port code page codec to Un
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2011-10-28 - 2011-11-04)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open3118 (+10)
closed 22006 (+45)
total 25124 (+55)
Open issues wit
Nick and Brett share the opinion that some code cleanups can be
considered bugfixes, whereas MvL, Barry and Raymond defend that we never
know what can get broken and it’s not worth risking it.
I have added a comment on #13283 (removal of two unused variable in
locale.py) to restate this policy, bu
"Martin v. Löwis", 04.11.2011 08:39:
Is it worth the hassle? We can just port our existing error handlers,
and I guess the few third-party error handlers written in C (if any)
can bear the transition.
That was my question exactly. As the author of PEP 393, I was leaning
towards full backwards c
> Is it worth the hassle? We can just port our existing error handlers,
> and I guess the few third-party error handlers written in C (if any)
> can bear the transition.
That was my question exactly. As the author of PEP 393, I was leaning
towards full backwards compatibility, but you, Victor, and
12 matches
Mail list logo
