Le mer. 15 mai 2019 à 20:46, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
> But trust me that the SC didn't take this decision lightly. It was unanimous,
> and we have all thought about this a great deal (and listened to long
> arguments pro and con). It's also impossible to satisfy everyone -- some
> people
IMO the text of PEP 581 could use some improvements to capture more of the
debate. For example:
- If people want to submit PRs to the peps repo that correct *factual*
mistakes in PEP 581, they're welcome to (and I will personally see that
they will be merged). For example, IIRC you *can* reply to
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:53 AM Steve Dower wrote:
> On 15May2019 0240, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 09:51, Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:11:14 -0700
> >> Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >>
> >>> As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing
On 15May2019 0240, Paul Moore wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 09:51, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:11:14 -0700
Barry Warsaw wrote:
As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the rest of
the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
For future
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:38 AM Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le mer. 15 mai 2019 à 11:31, Christian Heimes a
> écrit :
> > What are the next step? Will there be another PEP that explores how we
> > are going to deal with migration, workflow changes, and how we plan to
> > map current BPO features to
Le mer. 15 mai 2019 à 11:31, Christian Heimes a écrit :
> What are the next step? Will there be another PEP that explores how we
> are going to deal with migration, workflow changes, and how we plan to
> map current BPO features to Github?
Yes, it's the:
PEP 588 -- GitHub Issues Migration Plan
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 09:51, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:11:14 -0700
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> > As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the
> > rest of the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
>
> For future reference, is it possible to
On 15/05/2019 10.55, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> On 15.05.2019 11:48, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:11:14 -0700
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>>> As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of
>>> the rest of the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this
On 15.05.2019 11:48, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:11:14 -0700
Barry Warsaw wrote:
As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the rest of
the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
For future reference, is it possible to post the Steering
On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:11:14 -0700
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the rest
> of the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
For future reference, is it possible to post the Steering Council's
reflection and rationale on the PEP?
On Wed, 15 May 2019 08:40:58 +0100
Steve Holden wrote:
> As a mere user I'd like to thank the developer team for biting this bullet.
> Remembering the transition to Git I am sure that the further
> democratisation (?) of the development process will similarly increase the
> diversity and scope of
As a mere user I'd like to thank the developer team for biting this bullet.
Remembering the transition to Git I am sure that the further
democratisation (?) of the development process will similarly increase the
diversity and scope of the development effort.
It will indeed be a significant effort
Congrats Mariatta :-)
Victor
Le mer. 15 mai 2019 à 03:14, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
>
> As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the rest
> of the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
>
> We would like to thank Mariatta for championing PEP 581, and to all the
>
As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the rest of
the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
We would like to thank Mariatta for championing PEP 581, and to all the
contributors to the discussion, both pro and con. We appreciate your candor
and respect for
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 16:52, Karthikeyan wrote:
> Personally, I think more people will love it once they get to use it so if
> something like 100 issues can be migrated to a sample repo with labels,
> content etc.
We're already using GitHub issues for pretty much everything in Python
core
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:41 AM Mariatta wrote:
> I'd like to formally present to Python-dev PEP 581: Using GitHub Issues
> for CPython
>
> Full text: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0581/
>
>
Thanks a lot for doing this!
* The current bug tracker has low contributions and
I'll start by saying I don't think a history lesson is important for this
PEP. This is simply a matter of evaluating whether Roundup or GitHub issues
is better for us and in the future. There's no real mistakes to watch out
for or anything (and if there is it's that self-hosting has a cost ;) .
On Mar 7, 2019, at 14:36, Mariatta wrote:
> I was not involved in core Python development back then, so if it is really
> important and if people think such paragraph needs to be part of the PEP,
> then perhaps someone else more knowledgeable will need to help with this.
>
> Personally, I
I've made the PR about "not closing all issues":
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/917/files
ᐧ
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:12 PM Mariatta wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:35 PM Matthew Woodcraft
> wrote:
>
>>
>> One part of this PEP stands out to me:
>>
>> | We should not be moving all open issues to GitHub. Issues with little
>> | or no activity should just be closed. Issues with no
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM Skip Montanaro
wrote:
> I think it would be worthwhile to mention a couple
> reasons, when the decision was made to use Roundup, etc. Without it, a
> casual reader might think the core devs made a horrible mistake way
> back when, and are only now getting around
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:36 PM Manuel Cerón wrote:
>
> After some frustration with bpo, I decided to file some issues into the
> meta tracker, just to find out that the link [1] provided by the Python
> Developer's Guide [2] is broken, giving a connection timeout.
>
>
Sometime ago we've started
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:35 PM Matthew Woodcraft
wrote:
>
> One part of this PEP stands out to me:
>
> | We should not be moving all open issues to GitHub. Issues with little
> | or no activity should just be closed. Issues with no decision made for
> | years should just be closed.
>
> I
> I'd like to formally present to Python-dev PEP 581: Using GitHub Issues for
> CPython
>
> Full text: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0581/
Thanks for doing this. I think there is a pretty strong argument to be
made that mature, widely adopted systems like GitHub (or GitLab
On 07/03/2019 19.08, Mariatta wrote:
I'd like to formally present to Python-dev PEP 581: Using GitHub Issues
for CPython
Full text: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0581/
This is my first PEP, and in my opinion it is ready for wider
discussion.
One part of this PEP stands out to me:
| We
I'd like to formally present to Python-dev PEP 581: Using GitHub Issues for
CPython
Full text: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0581/
This is my first PEP, and in my opinion it is ready for wider discussion. I
don't know if it is "ready for pronouncement" so I'm hoping to get mor
26 matches
Mail list logo
