On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
various projects under win32.
It's planned to night.
The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
projects o
Shouldn't this be on python-ideas?
S
On Oct 20, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
Hi,
as some of you know, recently I've released an arbitrary precision
C library for decimal arithmetic together with a Python module:
http://www.bytereef.org/libmpdec.html
http://www.bytereef.org/fastdec.ht
On Oct 20, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't this be on python-ideas?
I found previous discussions about "Decimal in C" on python-dev,
that's why
used this list.
python-ideas:
This list is to contain discussion of speculativ
On Oct 22, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well __doc__ isn't a normal attribute -- it doesn't follow
inheritance rules.
Maybe we could add a ticket to flag this in the docs.
Is __doc__ not normal due to its general underscorishness, or is it
not normal because it isn't?
Any o
On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:18, sstein...@gmail.com > wrote:
On Oct 22, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well __doc__ isn't a normal attribute -- it doesn't follow
inheritance rules.
Maybe we could add a ticket to
On Oct 25, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
These are actually two issues:
a) where do we get buildbot hardware and operators?
I've been trying to get some feedback about firing up buildbots on
Cloud Servers for a while now and haven't had much luck. I'd love to
find a way of hav
On Oct 25, 2009, at 9:50 AM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
Actually setting one up in the first place might take a bit longer,
since it involves installing the necessary software and making sure
everything's set up right, but the actual slave configuration itself
is one command:
buildb
On Oct 25, 2009, at 10:05 AM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
First, there are now a multitude of cloud hosting providers which
will operate a slave machine for you. BuildBot has even begun to
support this deployment use-case by allowing you to start up and
shut down vms on demand to save
On Oct 25, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I've been trying to get some feedback about firing up buildbots on
Cloud
Servers for a while now and haven't had much luck. I'd love to
find a
way of having buildbots come to life, report to the mother ship, do
the
build, then go away '
On Oct 25, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I don't need to know that it works on every checkin
For us, that is a fairly important requirement, though.
Reports get more and more useless if they aren't instantaneous.
Sometimes, people check something in just to see how the build
slaves
On Oct 25, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Only turning on the slave occasionally makes it useless.
For certain use cases; not mine.
S
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Un
On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
-Original Message-
From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org
[mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org] On
Behalf
Of Sturla Molden
time.sleep should generate a priority request to re-acqu
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:45 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
Despite what I said above, however, I would also take a default
position against adding any kind of more advanced scheduling system
here. It would, perhaps, make sense to expose the APIs for
controlling the platform scheduler, t
On Oct 27, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Terry Reedy wrote more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more:
This topic needs its own flippin' newsgroup.
S
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/ma
On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
This topic needs its own flippin' newsgroup.
You could have said just that, appropriate or not, without dumping
on anyone in particular.
I was not trying to dump on you in particular, I picked a random
me
On Oct 28, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Hello,
Since the addition of PEP 370, (per-user site packages), site.py and
distutils/command/install.py are *both* providing the various
installation directories for Python,
depending on the system an
On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:30 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
twistedmatrix.com> writes:
Starting with a mainstream distro doesn't seem like a bad idea. For
example, there isn't currently a 32bit Ubuntu (any version) slave.
That
would be a nice gap to fill in, right?
I've setup a buildslave on an
Not that anyone has asked yet, but here's my opinion on two issues
that have been raised on the python-dev mailing list lately:
+1 on 2.7 release with as much 3.0 "easy-port goo" as is practicable
without delaying the product beyond the tentative schedule. Sooner
would, of course, be bett
On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:26 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
It really sounds like you're saying that switching to 3.x isn't
worth the cost to you, but you want to force people (including
yourself) to do so anyways, because ...?
Because that's the future of Python, where the developers who make
re
On Nov 2, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 10:48 PM, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
A better language, i.e. Python 3.x, will become better faster
without dragging the 2.x series out any longer.
If Python 2.7 becomes the last of the 2.x series, then I personally
favor
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, sstein...@gmail.com > wrote:
BeautifulSoup, which I use every day, is one such product. Since
the crappy
old SMGL parser's gone, BeautifulSoup uses the one that's left in
Python 3
On Nov 3, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 10:48 PM, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
A better language, i.e. Python 3.x, will become better faster
without
dragging the 2.x series out any longer.
If Python 2.7 becomes the last of the 2.x series
On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:55 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Michael Foord > wrote:
There is also little documentation on how to port a significant C
codebase to py3k.
Now there's a good Summer of Code project: to produce a pre-processor
that will flag all C constru
On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:58 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
P.S. I found it curious that one of the strongest proponents of
killing 2.x also mentioned that he has never written a line of 3.x
code. Since this discussion is a matter of great consequence, I
would hope that advocates will only ta
On Nov 3, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
I'd just like to mention that the scientific community is highly
dependent on NumPy. As long as NumPy is not ported to Py3k,
migration is out of the question. Porting NumPy is not a trivial
issue. It might take a complete rewrite of the whol
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, sstein...@gmail.com > wrote:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 AM, James Y Knight
wrote:
If that happens, it's not true that there's *nowh
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I'm not ready for that yet. I think there's plenty of time before we
have to agree to such a bleak view. In the mean time let's do
something practical like help NumPy port to Py3k.
Or, for example, Django...
See
http://wiki.python.org/moi
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 AM, James Y Knight wrote:
If that happens, it's not true that there's *nowhere* to go. A
solution
would be to discard 3.x as a failed experiment, take everything
that is
useful from it and port it to 2.x, and
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Arc Riley wrote:
The main thing holding back the community are lazy and/or obstinate
package maintainers. If they spent half the time they've put into
complaining about Py3 into actually working to upgrade their code
they'd be done now.
That's an inflammato
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Arc Riley gmail.com> writes:
+1 on ending with 2.6.I'm the maintainer of 3rd party Python 3-only
packages
and have ported a few modules that we needed with some help from
the 2to3
tool. It's really not a big deal - and Py3 really is a m
On Nov 3, 2009, at 7:42 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Antoine Pitrou writes:
Paul Moore gmail.com> writes:
TurboGears - Python 3 "currently unsupported", no timescale given
TurboGears is Pylons-based, so I suppose the actual question is when
Pylons gets ported.
And there's the rub. I expect th
On Nov 3, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
sstein...@gmail.com schrieb:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Arc Riley wrote:
The main thing holding back the community are lazy and/or obstinate
package maintainers. If they spent half the time they've put into
complaining about Py3
On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:06 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/11/3 sstein...@gmail.com :
On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:26 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
It really sounds like you're saying that switching to 3.x isn't
worth the
cost to you, but you want to force people (including yourself)
On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Carl Trachte wrote:
On 11/4/09, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the 3.x line should just be put out of our misery, merged back
to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and proceed as Glyph suggested in passing with
increasing levels of deprecation until it just turns into 3.x on its
On Nov 7, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Guido van Rossum writes:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM, David Lyon
wrote:
I think buildbot-style test runs for PyPI packages would raise average
package quality on PyPI.
Please excuse the cross-post but I wanted to make sure that all these
On Nov 7, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:30 AM, sstein...@gmail.com > wrote:
On Nov 7, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Guido van Rossum writes:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM, David Lyon >
wrote:
I think buildbot-style test runs for PyPI pa
On Dec 10, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
> On 12/8/09 6:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
>> will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
>> further discussion which won't take things any further, I pr
On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Michael Foord voidspace.org.uk> writes:
>>
>> I also use -v for verbose in a few scripts (including options to
>> unittest when run with python -m). I've seen -V as a common abbreviation
>> for --version (I've just used this with Mono for e
On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Steven Bethard wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Michael Foord
>>> On 14/12/2009 19:04, Ian Bicking wrote:
Another thing I just noticed is that argparse using -v for version
where optparse does
On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Steven Bethard wrote:
> But yes, it's a poll right now on the argparse website
> (http://code.google.com/p/argparse/) and if you feel strongly about
> it, please add your vote there (rather than here).
I don't even understand what the poll question is asking.
S
___
On Dec 14, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Steven Bethard gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Please read the PEP if you haven't, particularly the "Why isn't the
>> functionality just being added to optparse?" section. I don't believe
>> it is sensible to re-implement all of optparse. What Ian B
On Dec 27, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if "2.5"
>>> was just "2.5.0" or included
>>> versions like "2.5.1" or "2.5.2".
>>
>> H
On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> The dependency declarations are *not* Python language syntax, and there
> is no need to consider Python language syntax in defining them.
Agreed.
We're also not going to be writing an operating system with them; just simple
version range state
On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:17 AM, sstein...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>>> The dependency declarations are *not* Python language syntax, and there
>>> is
On Jan 3, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> Requires-Dist: pywin32 (>1.0); sys.platform == 'win32'
>>
>> Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+
>>
>> That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to
>> parse for package managers.
>
> Don't you want the PEP to complete? Why thi
On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:29 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>> On 06/01/2010 11:19, Chris Withers wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Is there a high volume of incoming bugs to the Python tracker?
>>> If so, I'd like to help with triaging. I think I have
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Ralf Schmitt wrote:
> "R. David Murray" writes:
>
>> Please review issue 2375 [1], which is an enhancement request to add a
>> PYTHON3PATH environment variable. Because we have elected to have both
>> a python and a python3 command, I think this is an issue worth
On Jan 14, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>> From: Jesse Noller
>
>> I'm generally +1 - but given I know that Django 1.2 is slated to
>> implement something somewhat similar, I'm interested to hear how this
>> proposal meshes with their plan(s)..
>
> Django 1.2 will most likely not imple
On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:07 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> To what extent would it be possible to use (conditionally) use full
>> ahead-of-time compilation as well as JIT?
>
> It would be possible to do this, but it doesn't have nearly the same
On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Chris Bergstresser wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Generally, that's not going to be the case. But the broader
> point--that you've no longer got an especially good idea of what's
> taking time to run in your program--is still very
On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 23:15, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> Sounds good, thanks
>
> It's right here: ssh://h...@hg.python.org/repos/distutils2
The checkout URL for non-ssh read-only access is:
http://hg.python.org/distutils2/
in case
On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
>> for Windows 2000.
>>
>> If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
>> 2.7 inst
52 matches
Mail list logo
