On 10/6/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:34 PM 10/6/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >How does this sound to the non-AST-branch developers who have to
> >suffer the inevitable post-merge instability? I think it's now or
> >never -- waiting longer isn't going to make this t
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How does this sound to the non-AST-branch developers who have to
> suffer the inevitable post-merge instability? I think it's now or
> never -- waiting longer isn't going to make this thing easier (not
> with several more language changes approved: wi
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I happen to agree with Kurt that we should first merge the head into
> the branch; then the AST team can work on making sure the entire
> test suite passes; then they can merge back into the head.
I can be available to do this again. It would involv
On 10/6/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Kurt]
> > > Unless I'm missing something, we would need to merge HEAD to the AST
> > > branch once more to pick up the changes in MAIN since the last merge,
> > > and then make sure everything in the AST branch is passing the test
> > > sui
At 07:34 PM 10/6/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>How does this sound to the non-AST-branch developers who have to
>suffer the inevitable post-merge instability? I think it's now or
>never -- waiting longer isn't going to make this thing easier (not
>with several more language changes approved:
[Kurt]
> > Unless I'm missing something, we would need to merge HEAD to the AST
> > branch once more to pick up the changes in MAIN since the last merge,
> > and then make sure everything in the AST branch is passing the test
> > suite. Otherwise we risk having MAIN broken for awhile following a
>
> Unless I'm missing something, we would need to merge HEAD to the AST
> branch once more to pick up the changes in MAIN since the last merge,
> and then make sure everything in the AST branch is passing the test
> suite. Otherwise we risk having MAIN broken for awhile following a
> merge.
IMO, m
Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/6/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only alternative to abandoning it that I see is to merge it back
>> into main NOW, using the time that remains us until the 2.5 release to
>> make it robust. That way, everybody can help out
On 10/6/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/6/05, Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If we kill the branch for now, then anyone that wants to bring up the idea
> > > again can write a PEP first
> >
> > I still have some
On 10/6/05, Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If we kill the branch for now, then anyone that wants to bring up the idea
> > again can write a PEP first
>
> I still have some (very) small hope that it can be finished. If we
> don't get it don
Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we kill the branch for now, then anyone that wants to bring up the idea
> again can write a PEP first
I still have some (very) small hope that it can be finished. If we
don't get it done soon then I fear that it will never happen. I had
hoped that a
[Brett]
> To answer Nick's email here, I didn't respond to that initial email
> because it seemed specifically directed at Guido and not me.
Fair enough. I think I was actually misrembering the sequence of events
leading up to 2.4a1, so the question was less appropriate for Guido than I
thought
To answer Nick's email here, I didn't respond to that initial email
because it seemed specifically directed at Guido and not me.
On 10/5/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/5/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyway, the question is: What do we want to do with ast
On 10/5/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, the question is: What do we want to do with ast-branch? Finish
> bringing it up to Python 2.4 equivalence, make it the HEAD, and only then
> implement the approved PEP's (308, 342, 343) that affect the compiler? Or
> implement the approv
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 10/4/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I was planning on looking at your patch too, but I was waiting for an answer
>>from Guido about the fate of the ast-branch for Python 2.5. Given that we have
>>patches for PEP 342 and PEP 343 against the trunk, but a
15 matches
Mail list logo
