On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> One final point. We will almost definitely not switch the default
> python in sid (current unstable), until there is talk that Sarge is
> nearing a freeze. There is simply no point in undergoing the pain of
> a major python release tw
> On Aug 14, Laura Creighton wrote:
> > The new Python Business Forum (www.python-in-business.com) is
>
> what is this? The link is dead. Is this the former PSA?
No. My brain was tired -- it was python-in-business.org. Apologies.
We are new. We are a Business Non-Profit Society 'to organise
> On Aug 14, Laura Creighton wrote:
> > The new Python Business Forum (www.python-in-business.com) is
>
> what is this? The link is dead. Is this the former PSA?
Try www.python-in-business.org. It's a Swedish non-profit created
earlier this year.
> Guido van Rossum writes:
> > > Now, if 2.3 w
On Aug 14, Laura Creighton wrote:
> The new Python Business Forum (www.python-in-business.com) is
what is this? The link is dead. Is this the former PSA?
Guido van Rossum writes:
> > Now, if 2.3 won't be stable until well into next year (as opposed to
> > the schedule in PEP 283), then we may w
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> > Laura: (and Guido et al.)
> > Debian plans to support at least Python 2.2 and 2.3 in the next
> > release (sarge); [...]
> One final point. We will almost definitely not switch the default
> python in sid (current unstable), until ther
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:54:31PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > On Aug 14, Laura Creighton wrote:
[...]
> One final point. We will almost definitely not switch the default
> python in sid (current unstable), until there is talk that
> BTW: is the PIAT consortium going to offer any DSFG free software?
>
> Jim Penny
It is the PIT-SIG, not consortium, which is part of the Python Business
Forum. You can read our bylaws here: www.python-in-business.org/about/bylaws
(if you care to). We didn't come together for the Purpose
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:54:31PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Aug 14, Laura Creighton wrote:
> > The new Python Business Forum (www.python-in-business.com) is
> > collaborating with the Python developers to produce Python-in-a-Tie,
> > a business-targetted release of Python. This is a 'Sumo
> Now, if 2.3 won't be stable until well into next year (as opposed to
> the schedule in PEP 283), then we may want to target 2.2.x as our
> default version.
Which version of PEP 283 are you referring to? It once had us release
the final version around the end of August. But the current version
On Aug 14, Laura Creighton wrote:
> The new Python Business Forum (www.python-in-business.com) is
> collaborating with the Python developers to produce Python-in-a-Tie,
> a business-targetted release of Python. This is a 'Sumo-Release',
> which will include other useful Python libraries and progra
> Laura Creighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Okay, I (and several other people) are confused. What does
> > 'the next default python' and 'skipping 2.2 entirely' that Chris Lawrence
> > writes mean?
>
> It means that, if realized, the next Debian release would have:
> - python 2.3 in th
Laura Creighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I (and several other people) are confused. What does
> 'the next default python' and 'skipping 2.2 entirely' that Chris Lawrence
> writes mean?
It means that, if realized, the next Debian release would have:
- python 2.3 in the "standard" set
Okay, I (and several other people) are confused. What does
'the next default python' and 'skipping 2.2 entirely' that Chris Lawrence
writes mean?
If typing apt-get is the hardest technical thing you ever do, I want
you to get 2.2, not 2.1 or 2.3 when you decide to get Python. Also, I
want devel
> > Thanks for the post, Laura. I agree -- Python 2.3 won't be ready for
> > a long time, and I recommend to the Debian folks that they
> > standardize on Python 2.2. For now, that will be Python 2.2.1; a
> > maintenance release, 2.2.2 will be issued some time later this year.
> >
>
> But Zope
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 11:02:18AM -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Thanks for the post, Laura. I agree -- Python 2.3 won't be ready for
> a long time, and I recommend to the Debian folks that they
> standardize on Python 2.2. For now, that will be Python 2.2.1; a
> maintenance release, 2.2.2 wil
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 03:25:01PM +0200, Laura Creighton wrote:
> >>On Aug 06, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> >>As the new upstream of python-gnome (for GNOME 2) needs python 2.2 for
> >>building I am wondering when python 2.2 will get the default version
> >>for Debian. Any insights?
> >
> >I believ
3 to reach maturity until mid 2003.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
[Context:]
> Subject: Re: Move to python 2.2 as default release?
> From: Laura Creighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTE
>>On Aug 06, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
>>As the new upstream of python-gnome (for GNOME 2) needs python 2.2 for
>>building I am wondering when python 2.2 will get the default version
>>for Debian. Any insights?
>
>I believe a consensus was reached on debian-python that we would move
>to Python 2.3
18 matches
Mail list logo
