I got error message that test_dtrace and test_normalization failed. Below is
the messages when I reran the test. Please let me know whether these errors are
okay.
Thanks,
Haritha
[root@mrkdlvaiaas2882 Python-3.6.5]# ./python -m test -v test_normalization
== CPython 3.6.5 (default, Mar 8 2019,
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:46 AM Richard Damon
wrote:
> On 3/8/19 8:09 AM, Alex Walters wrote:
> > I'm confused about this. Didn't you need someone with merge permissions
> already to merge a pep into the pep repo? Isn't this just adding a layer
> of paperwork to something that was already the
This is all OT for this thread. If you would like to start a new discussion
about changing the PEP process so discussion threads are tracked more
thoroughly then please do.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:29 AM Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi Brett,
>
> I like to see discussions where a PEP has been
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2019-03-01 - 2019-03-08)
Python tracker at https://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:
open7031 (+19)
closed 40963 (+65)
total 47994 (+84)
Open issues
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:25 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> My preference would be to just re-sign the CLA *immediately*, and not
> wait for when I have a PR - I presume that would be
> possible/supported.
>
Yes this is possible, and once the switchover happens, I will post the link
with instructions
I just have one thing to add to the discussion, which is this:
https://youtu.be/hAnCiTpxXPg?t=6339
Yes, people actually read and interpret our documentation :) So
discussions like this are probably a good thing in terms of getting the
best descriptions in there, but if we use a specific
On 3/8/19 8:09 AM, Alex Walters wrote:
> I'm confused about this. Didn't you need someone with merge permissions
> already to merge a pep into the pep repo? Isn't this just adding a layer of
> paperwork to something that was already the case for all practical purposes?
>
>
I would say the
I'm confused about this. Didn't you need someone with merge permissions
already to merge a pep into the pep repo? Isn't this just adding a layer of
paperwork to something that was already the case for all practical purposes?
> -Original Message-
> From: Python-Dev
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 10:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 07:25:37AM +, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> > PS I would also prefer not to have to re-sign, but just have my
> > existing confirmation carried over. I don't *know* if there are any
> > implications at my end around
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 07:25:37AM +, Paul Moore wrote:
> PS I would also prefer not to have to re-sign, but just have my
> existing confirmation carried over. I don't *know* if there are any
> implications at my end around re-signing, and my preference is simply
> to not ask that question
Yeah, such list is more convenient than just "Post-History:
14-Aug-2001, 03-Sept-2001".
Victor
Le ven. 8 mars 2019 à 09:40, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
>
> On 2019-03-08 09:29, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > I would like to suggest to add URLs to the first messages of all
> > threads about a PEP...
>
>
On 2019-03-08 09:29, Victor Stinner wrote:
I would like to suggest to add URLs to the first messages of all
threads about a PEP...
Like this?
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0580/#discussion
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Hi Brett,
I like to see discussions where a PEP has been disccussed. There is
the "Post History" just gives dates. The problem is that PEPs are
discussed on 3 mailing lists: python-ideas, python-dev and
python-committers. Maybe some PEP are now also discussed on
discuss.python.org.
Do you have
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 12:12 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 12:56:13PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
>>
>> In any case, the word is easy enough to avoid in this case.
>
> I don't think we should avoid using standard terminology even if we can.
> Knowledge of standard
14 matches
Mail list logo
