On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:52:16 -0800
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:34, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > I would like the next release called 3.2.0 rather than just 3.2.
> >
> > 'x.y' is known to be ambiguous and confusing.
> >
> > In most actual usages, I believe, it refers to the latest
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:20, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Agreed. Although better to defer it to 3.3.0 at this point.
+1.0.0 for that.
Yes, it's confusing, but it's going to be even more confusing if it's
called 3.2 sometimes and 3.2.0 sometimes.
--
Lennart Regebro: http://regebro.wordpress.com/
On 2/17/2011 1:36 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
'x.y' is known to be ambiguous and confusing.
Not really.
Actually, to me, the confusion is slightly worse, and the reason to
change slightly stronger, than I initially explained. Python x.y i
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Actually, to me, the confusion is slightly worse, and the reason to change
> slightly stronger, than I initially explained. Python x.y is a version of
> the *language*. CPython x.y.z is an occasional marked release of an
> *implementation*.
>
>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> For the 3.2 series, I think living with the ambiguity for another 6
> months or so (however long it is until 3.2.1 is released) is the
> better choice. There are enough parts of the release process that
> involve the version number that we *re
Speaking of, what is the current status and timeline on the move to
Mercurial?
~/santa
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Victor Stinner <
victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> wrote:
> Le mardi 15 février 2011 à 09:30 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> > I'm going to perform a Debian upgrade of svn.py
On 17/02/2011 22:01, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
For the 3.2 series, I think living with the ambiguity for another 6
months or so (however long it is until 3.2.1 is released) is the
better choice. There are enough parts of the release process that
in
Am 17.02.2011 23:19, schrieb Santoso Wijaya:
> Speaking of, what is the current status and timeline on the move to
> Mercurial?
I think it's fair to say that the project currently rests, lacking
a project lead. The most recent timeline is that conversion should
be completed by PyCon, and, failing
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 00:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I think it's fair to say that the project currently rests, lacking
> a project lead. The most recent timeline is that conversion should
> be completed by PyCon, and, failing that, should start at PyCon.
It's not exactly resting; I've been
