On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 21:38:45 +
Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
object_set_class is responsible for checking whether it's okay to take
an object of class oldto and convert it to an object of class
newto. Basically it's goal is just to avoid crashing the interpreter
(as would quickly
On 2 December 2014 at 01:38, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
As far as I'm concerned I'm just waiting for your decision now.
The RhodeCode team got in touch with me offline to suggest the
possibility of using RhodeCode Enterprise as a self-hosted solution
rather than a
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:17 PM, barry.warsaw python-check...@python.org wrote:
summary:
- Issue #22966: Fix __pycache__ pyc file name clobber when pyc_compile is
asked to compile a source file containing multiple dots in the source file
name.
diff --git a/Lib/test/test_py_compile.py
On Dec 02, 2014, at 06:44 AM, Jeremy Kloth wrote:
This test is failing on the Windows buildbots due to the hard-coded
path separator. Using `os.pathsep` should work assuming that
importlib returns normalized paths.
Good catch, thanks, however os.path would be the one to use. Here's the patch
So I was waiting for Nick to say what he wanted to do for the peps repo
since I view it as I get 2/3 of the choices and he gets the other third.
The way I view it, the options are:
1. Move to GitHub
2. Move to Bitbucket
3. Improve our current tooling (either through new hosting setup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/2014 11:50 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
So do people want PEPs or experimentation first?
I'd vote for experimentation, to ground the discussion in actual practice.
Tres.
- --
===
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
I'd vote for experimentation, to ground the discussion in actual practice.
+1. There may be a number of practical gotchas that very well might
not surface in PEPs and should be documented and planned for. Likewise
with
Thanks for taking charge, Brett.
I personally think this shouldn't be brought up at the summit -- it's
likely to just cause lots of heat about git vs. hg, free vs. not-free,
loyalty to free or open tools, the weighing of core committers'
preferences vs. outside contributors' preferences, GitHub's
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 1:05:22 PM Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Thanks for taking charge, Brett.
I personally think this shouldn't be brought up at the summit -- it's
likely to just cause lots of heat about git vs. hg, free vs. not-free,
loyalty to free or open tools, the weighing
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 1:05:22 PM Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org
wrote:
Thanks for taking charge, Brett.
I personally think this shouldn't be brought up at the summit -- it's
likely to just cause lots of heat about
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 18:21:39 +
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
So if we did have a discussion at the summit and someone decided to argue
for FLOSS vs. not as a key factor then I would politely cut them off and
say that doesn't matter to me and move on. As I said, I would moderate
On Dec 02, 2014, at 06:21 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Well, if I'm going to be the Great Decider on this then I can say upfront
I'm taking a pragmatic view of preferring open but not mandating it,
preferring hg over git but not ruling out a switch, preferring Python-based
tools but not viewing it as
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 1:52:49 PM Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 18:21:39 +
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
So if we did have a discussion at the summit and someone decided to argue
for FLOSS vs. not as a key factor then I would politely cut them off
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 1:59:20 PM Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Dec 02, 2014, at 06:21 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Well, if I'm going to be the Great Decider on this then I can say upfront
I'm taking a pragmatic view of preferring open but not mandating it,
preferring hg over git but
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 1:59:20 PM Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org
mailto:ba...@python.org wrote:
On Dec 02, 2014, at 06:21 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Well, if I'm going to be the Great Decider on this then I can say upfront
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 2:15:09 PM Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 1:59:20 PM Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Dec 02, 2014, at 06:21 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Well, if I'm going to be the
I should say I will take a few days to think about this and then I will
start a new thread outlining what I think we should be aiming for to help
frame the whole discussion and to give proponents something to target.
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 2:20:16 PM Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Tue
On 12/02/2014 11:21 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I should say I will take a few days to think about this and then I will start
a new thread outlining what I think we should be aiming for to help frame the
whole discussion and to give proponents something to target.
Thanks for taking this on,
On Dec 02, 2014, at 07:20 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
No because only two people have said they like the experiment idea so
that's not exactly enough to say it's worth the effort. =) Plus GitHub
could be chosen in the end.
Experimenting could be useful, although if the traffic is disproportionate
Brett Cannon br...@python.org writes:
Well, if I'm going to be the Great Decider on this then I can say
upfront I'm taking a pragmatic view of preferring open but not
mandating it, preferring hg over git but not ruling out a switch,
preferring Python-based tools but not viewing it as a
On 12/02/2014 08:50 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
So do people want PEPs or experimentation first?
Experiments are good -- then we'll have real (if limited) data... which is
better than no data. ;)
--
~Ethan~
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 3:14:20 PM Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Dec 02, 2014, at 07:20 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
No because only two people have said they like the experiment idea so
that's not exactly enough to say it's worth the effort. =) Plus GitHub
could be chosen in the end.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. I'll also bring up some of the RFEs raised in this discussion
around making it possible for folks to submit pull requests via
GitHub/BitBucket, even if the master repositories are hosted on PSF
infrastructure.
In case
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
So I was waiting for Nick to say what he wanted to do for the peps repo
since I view it as I get 2/3 of the choices and he gets the other third.
The way I view it, the options are:
Move to GitHub
Move to Bitbucket
Improve
Before anyone gets too excited about Rietveld (which I originally wrote as
an APp Engine demo), AFAIK we're using a fork that only Martin von Loewis
can maintain -- and it's a dead-end fork because the Rietveld project
itself only supports App Engine, but Martin's fork runs on our own server
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Before anyone gets too excited about Rietveld (which I originally wrote as an
APp Engine demo), AFAIK we're using a fork that only Martin von Loewis can
maintain -- and it's a dead-end fork because the Rietveld project
On 12/02/2014 02:47 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org
mailto:gu...@python.org wrote:
Before anyone gets too excited about Rietveld (which I originally
wrote as an APp Engine demo), AFAIK we're using a fork that only
Martin von Loewis can
Last year in late December, I did a brief, 9 question survey of 2.x vs
3.x usage.
I like the think the results were interesting, but I don't have the
spare cash to do it again this year. I probably shouldn't have done
it last year. ^_^
Is anyone interested in taking over the survey? It's on
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 21:38:45 +
Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
object_set_class is responsible for checking whether it's okay to take
an object of class oldto and convert it to an object of class
newto.
Hi all,
I'm seeking to move http://bugs.python.org/issue16329 towards conclusion.
Since the discussion on the issue itself seems to have petered out, I
thought I'd bring it up here.
To summarize the issue, it proposes adding an entry for WebM (
http://www.webmproject.org/docs/container/#naming )
On 3 Dec 2014 08:47, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Before anyone gets too excited about Rietveld (which I originally wrote
as an APp Engine demo), AFAIK we're using a fork that only Martin von
Loewis can maintain --
On 12/2/2014 7:07 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
Hi all,
I'm seeking to move http://bugs.python.org/issue16329 towards conclusion.
Since the discussion on the issue itself seems to have petered out, I
thought I'd bring it up here.
To summarize the issue, it proposes adding an entry for WebM (
On 02Dec2014 21:16, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 12/2/2014 7:07 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
To summarize the issue, it proposes adding an entry for WebM (
http://www.webmproject.org/docs/container/#naming ) to the mimetypes
standard library module's file-extension to MIME-type database.
Apologies if it has already been mentioned in the issue, but could the webm
project be nudged towards officializing their mimetype?
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014, 05:56 Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au wrote:
On 02Dec2014 21:16, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 12/2/2014 7:07 PM, Chris Rebert
34 matches
Mail list logo
