On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:46, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Armin Ronacher schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Georg Brandl wrote:
>>> That's why at PyCon (or was it Europython?)
PyCon.
> we thought about a "tags"
>>> field for issues. The main use for tags would be module names (and
>>> it should be advertised as
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:05, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 19:42 -0700, Raymond Hettinger a écrit :
>>> > That would be a third source of info about who maintains what.
>>>
>>> Is this just a formalization of what
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:08:28PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 07:49, C. Titus Brown wrote:
> >>Michael said:
> >> Armin said:
> >> > That, and a group of
> >> >people, dedicated to standard library refactoring. ??The majority of
> >> >libraries in the standard library are
Georg Brandl schrieb:
>> By far the most important part of that process was not my role in
>> putting the tasks up, but Georg's role in reviewing the patches and
>> committing them in a timely manner. I can't speak for how much time he
>> spent doing that,
>
> Enough for one lifetime! No, serio
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 07:49, C. Titus Brown wrote:
Michael said:
Armin said:
That, and a group of
people, dedicated to standard library refactoring. The majority of
libraries in the standard library are small and easy to understand, I'm
sure they are perfectly
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 07:49, C. Titus Brown wrote:
>>Michael said:
>> Armin said:
>> > That, and a group of
>> >people, dedicated to standard library refactoring. The majority of
>> >libraries in the standard library are small and easy to understand, I'm
>> >sure they are perfectly suited for s
C. Titus Brown schrieb:
>>Michael said:
>> Armin said:
>> > That, and a group of
>> >people, dedicated to standard library refactoring. The majority of
>> >libraries in the standard library are small and easy to understand, I'm
>> >sure they are perfectly suited for students on projects like GSOC
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Masklinn wrote:
> A basic FreeBSD machine and automatically creating and destroying BSD jails
> would probably work as well (and with less limitations) wouldn't it? (or
> another kind of virtualization, but jails seem to work pretty well for
> running untrusted cod
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I'm all for non-exclusive maintainership, with people having reasonable
> authority over code they understand thoroughly. You taking care of
> multiprocessing falls into this category (as long as you don't demand to
> approve of all changes before they are committed).
>
> I
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Backwards compatibility is a *big* problem
for any major refactoring though.
Sigh.
*sigh*
Don't you just love emails that start with a sigh. Anyway, yes. That is
why I said it was a problem. Good grief.
Michael
I sometimes get the fe
Le mercredi 16 septembre 2009 à 18:35 +0300, Orestis Markou a écrit :
>
> Hopefully it will help the discussion go forward, and perhaps help the
> people who are writing PEPs.
What would already help would be properly formatting your email. Most of
it is unreadable here... A good guideline is pro
Michael Foord wrote:
> Backwards compatibility is a *big* problem
> for any major refactoring though.
Sigh.
I sometimes get the feeling that people on this list don't
know Python's history, how it was developed over the past decade
and what our goals were.
Maintaining as much backwards compatibi
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:54 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
>> Quite a work, but I am in for some brainstroming at Pycon on this topic
>> if you are interested :)
>
> yep, absolutely! I think I've got the execution and reporting end
> handled; now we just need to get some virtual environments running
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:43:18PM +0200, Tarek Ziad? wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:28:35AM -0400, Jesse Noller wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Michael Foord
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It looks like it will be something
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:28:35AM -0400, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Michael Foord
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > It looks like it will be something covered at the language summit, but an
>> > open space is a good idea. B
The recent discussions on breaking the standard library made something
click for me. I wrote a long blog post about it, which I am pasting
here. The original is at http://orestis.gr/blog/2009/09/16/backwards-compatibility-straw-man/
Hopefully it will help the discussion go forward, and perhap
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 19:42 -0700, Raymond Hettinger a écrit :
>> > That would be a third source of info about who maintains what.
>>
>> Is this just a formalization of what we already do now?
>
> I cannot speak for David, but IMHO it
>Michael said:
> Armin said:
> > That, and a group of
> >people, dedicated to standard library refactoring. The majority of
> >libraries in the standard library are small and easy to understand, I'm
> >sure they are perfectly suited for students on projects like GSOC or
> >GHOP to work on. They c
Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 19:42 -0700, Raymond Hettinger a écrit :
> > That would be a third source of info about who maintains what.
>
> Is this just a formalization of what we already do now?
I cannot speak for David, but IMHO it should be a bit more than that.
The underlying idea is to pr
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:28:35AM -0400, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
> >
> > It looks like it will be something covered at the language summit, but an
> > open space is a good idea. Backwards compatibility is a *big* problem for
> > any major ref
Hi,
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> The work we've started in PEP 376 and PEP 386 (and some elements not
> formalized in PEPs) is trying
> to improve the situation.
And I'm incredible thankful for that. It's heading into the right
direction.
Regards,
Armin
___
st
Hi,
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> First, I'm not sure what it has to do with the stdlib.
Preamble.
> I don't know if including something like Babel in the stdlib would be a
> good thing. It depends on the size of it, and the required maintenance
> (I suppose there is a continuous flow of patches, as lo
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
> I wonder if the solution to this problem wouldn't be a largely improved
> packaging system and some sort of standardized reviewing process for the
> standard library.
FYI
The work we've started in PEP 376 and PEP 386 (and some elements not
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
> It looks like it will be something covered at the language summit, but an
> open space is a good idea. Backwards compatibility is a *big* problem for
> any major refactoring though.
>
> Michael
>
Yup, language summit. I'm hoping to cover s
[snip]
> with shared state on module level, web applications are not. It is true
> that Python currently has some issues with high concurrency and people
> try to fix that by forking and spawning new processes which certainly
> hides away the problem of shared state, but that does not solve it.
F
Armin Ronacher wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm known for my dislike of the standard libray. In the past I wrote
some blog posts about this topic into my personal blog already. However
as many people pointed out earlier, a blog is not the place for this
kind of criticism. Not only that, also just ran
Hello,
I'll just comment on some specific points:
> A quick look at the
> mail archives confirms what I was afraid of: this list is really high
> traffic.
Actually, it was very low traffic until those recent threads were
spawned.
I'm probably guilty of some of the traffic :-)
> It is true
> th
John Szakmeister wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm known for my dislike of the standard libray. In the past I wrote
some blog posts about this topic into my personal blog already. However
as many people pointed out earlier, a blog is not the p
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm known for my dislike of the standard libray. In the past I wrote
> some blog posts about this topic into my personal blog already. However
> as many people pointed out earlier, a blog is not the place for this
> kind
Armin Ronacher schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> That's why at PyCon (or was it Europython?) we thought about a "tags"
>> field for issues. The main use for tags would be module names (and
>> it should be advertised as such in the UI for submitting bugs)
>> with auto-nosy associations for
Hi everybody,
I'm known for my dislike of the standard libray. In the past I wrote
some blog posts about this topic into my personal blog already. However
as many people pointed out earlier, a blog is not the place for this
kind of criticism. Not only that, also just ranting about a topic does
Hi,
Georg Brandl wrote:
> That's why at PyCon (or was it Europython?) we thought about a "tags"
> field for issues. The main use for tags would be module names (and
> it should be advertised as such in the UI for submitting bugs)
> with auto-nosy associations for module maintainers.
Arbitrary tag
Hi,
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> if i dissappear, then other developers step in and rearrange all my code
s/other developers/me/
s/rearrange all my code/rename all my classes/
FTFY
Regards,
Armin
___
stdlib-sig mailing list
stdlib-sig@python.org
http://
Late to the party.
+1 for a list
+1 for maintainers not owners
Michael
R. David Murray wrote:
It has been mentioned here that some bugs languish in the tracker because
there is no one willing to say "yes" or "no" to them. In at least some
cases this may be because it is unclear who the best p
M.-A. Lemburg schrieb:
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>>> Having a table in the official docs at least gives people an idea who
>>> to +noisy on bugs. How many multiprocessing bugs have you had to
>>> reassign, or even *add* me to because people outside of our group
>>> don't know?
>
> As general note: I h
Laura Creighton schrieb:
> In a message of Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:04:00 +0200, Georg Brandl writes:
>>Hey, I got another idea! What about we simply add a second set of docs, f
>>or
>>developers?
>>
>>We have lots of information scattered throughout the website, the source
>>and the heads of important
Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Having a table in the official docs at least gives people an idea who
>> to +noisy on bugs. How many multiprocessing bugs have you had to
>> reassign, or even *add* me to because people outside of our group
>> don't know?
As general note: I have the impression that the noisy
In a message of Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:04:00 +0200, Georg Brandl writes:
>Hey, I got another idea! What about we simply add a second set of docs, f
>or
>developers?
>
>We have lots of information scattered throughout the website, the source
>and the heads of important people (the most volatile sort),
Jesse Noller schrieb:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
>> 2009/9/15 Jesse Noller :
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:38 PM, R. David Murray
>>> wrote:
>>> Hmm, tables in a text file? I can see it, it's just always wacky.
>>
>> emacs table mode!
>
> while emacs might be
39 matches
Mail list logo
