I'm afraid there is going to be a small deluge of very confused users
who will end up needing to install Distribute but only when they
eventually figure out why some packages with C extensions mysteriously
no longer install after they upgrade to python 2.6.3. For example,
following the packag
2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
> I'm afraid there is going to be a small deluge of very confused users
> who will end up needing to install Distribute but only when they
> eventually figure out why some packages with C extensions mysteriously
> no longer install after they upgrade to python 2.6.3. For exam
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
>> I'm afraid there is going to be a small deluge of very confused users
>> who will end up needing to install Distribute but only when they
>> eventually figure out why some packages with C extensions mysteriously
>> n
In article
<94bdd2610910030649r431a5638y7c8b5332934f...@mail.gmail.com>,
Tarek Ziad? wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > 2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
> >> I'm afraid there is going to be a small deluge of very confused users
> >> who will end up needing to install Distr
On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
This is not a good experience for users. Unless I'm missing something
(and I hope I am), this issue really can't be hand-waved away.
What would you suggest?
S
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-S
2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
> This is not a good experience for users. Unless I'm missing something
> (and I hope I am), this issue really can't be hand-waved away.
It's unfortunate that this comes in a minor release. But at the same
time we can hardly avoid fixing bugs just because setuptools isn't
ge
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>
> This is not a good experience for users. Unless I'm missing something
> (and I hope I am), this issue really can't be hand-waved away.
Make sure to understand that the way setuptools patches distutils
makes it very sensible to any change made
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> ...makes it very sensible to any change made in distutils, even backward
> compatibles ones like in the 2.6 branch
s/backward compatibles/ bug fixes/
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@
On Oct 3, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
This is not a good experience for users. Unless I'm missing
something
(and I hope I am), this issue really can't be hand-waved away.
How about some sort of an announcement/warning on the setuptools site
itself?
I
In article
<94bdd2610910031309w61d72dcdo8faab4964bf67...@mail.gmail.com>,
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> > This is not a good experience for users. Unless I'm missing something
> > (and I hope I am), this issue really can't be hand-waved away.
> Make su
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:17:50 -0700, Ned Deily wrote:
On what other platforms is this likely to be a problem? Windows *?
Linuxes? If that can be identified, if necessary the distributors of
Python installers can be informed so they can inform their users (note,
that python.org is itself a dist
2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
> That's fine but they're not going to know about Distribute unless they
> stumble across discussions like this.
They are going to ask around, and somebody will know.
Most reasonably, they are going to ask the maker of the module they
are trying to install, and say "Hey your
Hi,
for the folks using virtualenv-distribute, i forked it to make the last 0.6.3
install instead of 0.6.1.
See :
http://bitbucket.org/kiorky/virtualenv-distribute/
Install it:
easy_install
http://distfiles.minitage.org/public/externals/minitage/virtualenv-distribute-1.3.5dev-1.zip
Ned Deily a
At 03:49 PM 10/3/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Notice that this has been fixed in Ubuntu already with a patched
version of setuptools
Is the patch or an equivalent already in the setuptools tracker? And
if not, can someone please post it there? Thanks.
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
>> This is not a good experience for users. Unless I'm missing something
>> (and I hope I am), this issue really can't be hand-waved away.
>
> It's unfortunate that this comes in a minor release.
Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened.
2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
> python-committers list of something this major.
Well "this major"... It's a bug fix that breaks a setuptools monkey-patch.
But yes, it was di
On Monday, 05 October, 2009, at 11:53AM, "Lennart Regebro"
wrote:
>2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
>> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
>> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
>> python-committers list of something this major.
>
>Well "this major"
In article <4ac9bef5.7080...@taupro.com>, Jeff Rush
wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > 2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
> >> This is not a good experience for users. Unless I'm missing something
> >> (and I hope I am), this issue really can't be hand-waved away.
> >
> > It's unfortunate that this comes i
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>Nobody will adopt it until they are forced to. This unfortunate bug
>>means people are forced to quicker than expected. I don't think that's
>>an actual problem.
>
> This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in replacement for
2009/10/5 Ronald Oussoren :
> This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in replacement for
> 2.6.2 but requires the replacement of another component as well. That can be
> a problem in organizations with strict configuration management where you
> cannot install new software withou
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Jeff Rush wrote:
Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And
*especially*
without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
python-committers list of something this major.
[...]
Considering that 2.6.3 is messed up in other ways, like displa
On Monday,2009-10-05, at 7:38 , Barry Warsaw wrote:
I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if
it's possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with
Python 2.6.3 /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen
asap. If that's not possible, then we m
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Jeff Rush wrote:
>
>> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
>> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
>> python-committers list of something this major.
>
> [...]
>
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
> On Monday,2009-10-05, at 7:38 , Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if it's
>> possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with Python 2.6.3
>> /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's
On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 Ronald Oussoren :
This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in
replacement for 2.6.2 but requires the replacement of another
component as well. That can be a problem in organizations with
strict configuration manag
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:21 PM, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
>> 2009/10/5 Ronald Oussoren :
>>>
>>> This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in replacement for
>>> 2.6.2 but requires the replacement of another component as well.
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
For beginners this issue is a showstopper that they cannot resolve without help.
I'm a relative beginner to distutils/setuptools/distribute, but a long
time configuration/build/packaging professional. You're mistaken if you
think that any of these technologies are sui
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in replacement for 2.6.2
but requires the replacement of another component as well. That can be a
problem in organizations with strict configuration management where you cannot
install new software without going to
On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if
it's possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with
Python 2.6.3 /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen
asap. If that's not possible, then we mig
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:25 AM, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Python packaging and distribution right now is not for beginners or
the faint of heart.
If we're honest with ourselves, it's not for experienced developers
either. Do you really even want to have to /think/ about this stuff?
-Barry
2009/10/5 Barry Warsaw :
> I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if it's
> possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with Python 2.6.3
> /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen asap.
PJE seems interested in this, as he asked about a patch, so ma
2009/10/5 K. Richard Pixley :
> This would be a problem if distribute were in general release. It's not.
> It's clearly a development branch which is intended to move quickly.
No, this is incorrect. The 0.6-branch is not intended to move quickly,
it is in bugfix mode.
It is moving quickly only b
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 2009/10/5 Barry Warsaw :
>> I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if it's
>> possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with Python 2.6.3
>> /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen asap.
>
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:25 AM, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Python packaging and distribution right now is not for beginners or
the faint of heart.
If we're honest with ourselves, it's not for experienced developers
either. Do you really even want to have to /think/ about this st
Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 K. Richard Pixley :
This would be a problem if distribute were in general release. It's not.
It's clearly a development branch which is intended to move quickly.
No, this is incorrect. The 0.6-branch is not intended to move quickly,
it is in bugfix mo
2009/10/5 K. Richard Pixley :
> Is that about right?
Nope. 0.6 is a fork of setuptools, providing bugfixes (and also 3.1
support). It's completely backwards compatible with setuptools.
0.7 is a development branch, which aims to refactor setuptools into
something or (rather several somethings) tha
K. Richard Pixley wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> For beginners this issue is a showstopper that they cannot resolve
>> without help.
>>
> I'm a relative beginner to distutils/setuptools/distribute, but a long
> time configuration/build/packaging professional. You're mistaken if you
> think
Jeremy Sanders kirjoitti:
K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
For beginners this issue is a showstopper that they cannot resolve
without help.
I'm a relative beginner to distutils/setuptools/distribute, but a long
time configuration/build/packaging professional.
On Monday,2009-10-05, at 8:11 , Tarek Ziadé wrote:
So are you saying that in an environment where you are allowed to
install Python 2.6.3, you will not be allowed to install an
hypothetical setuptools-0.6c10 (or a Distribute 0.6.3) ?
Yes, situations like that can come up. For example, I gu
I'm sorry to follow-up to my own post, but I realized that I didn't
make something clear: the current Tahoe-LAFS source distribution
comes with its own copy of setuptools, so even if PJE releases a new
version of setuptools or if we patch that copy to work-around this
problem, we're going t
Alex Grönholm wrote:
There is a lack of consensus regarding how exactly they should work.
If we are having this much trouble deciding how a third party tool
should work, it is certainly not going to be merged into distutils
until those issues have been resolved. Distutils is what houses (or
sh
2009/10/5 Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn :
> I'm sorry to say that this event has already made me more hesitant to jump
> from setuptools to Distribute, just because some of the maintainers of
> Distribute have posted saying that they don't think this kind of thing is
> such a big deal. I prefer to use pack
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> I've opened an issue of the main Python issue tracker outlining the
> problem, primarily for the benefit of affected users who search the
> tracker:
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue7064
If I understand the comments on this ticket correctly, Tar
At 11:53 AM 10/5/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
> python-committers list of something this major.
Well "this major"... It's a bug fix tha
At 07:25 AM 10/5/2009 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
How do I delete a package using easy_install?
http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#uninstalling-packages
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.o
At 04:57 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 Barry Warsaw :
> I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if it's
> possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with Python 2.6.3
> /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen asap.
PJE seem
At 06:53 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Possibly if you somehow
think it's the Distribute teams fault that a bugfix in Python ended up
breaking setuptools. If it would have been better not to fix that bug,
then the blame reasonably goes to the Python core developers, not the
Distribut
P.J. Eby wrote:
At 07:25 AM 10/5/2009 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
How do I delete a package using easy_install?
http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#uninstalling-packages
That doesn't remove a package. It simply removes the package from the
search path by one method in hope
At 07:53 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
If I understand the comments on this ticket correctly, Tarek has
changed distutils in a way so the last setuptools release continues
to work, correct?
Yes. And a very nice fix, done quite quickly. Thank you Tarek.
So based on the curren
I'm struggling to articulate something here. When the maintainer of
the stable branch of a platform that I rely on says "The fact that
upgrading to our recent stable release will break this critical
functionality is so-and-so's fault, not ours." this reduces my
confidence in that maintaine
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 8:38 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 07:53 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>>
>> If I understand the comments on this ticket correctly, Tarek has changed
>> distutils in a way so the last setuptools release continues to work,
>> correct?
>
> Yes. And a very nice fix,
At 11:29 AM 10/5/2009 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
P.J. Eby wrote:
At 07:25 AM 10/5/2009 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
How do I delete a package using easy_install?
http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#uninstalling-packages
That doesn't remove a package. It simply removes
2009/10/5 K. Richard Pixley :
> I'm recent to python packaging and distribution, so let me see if I've put
> this together right from my reading of the various web pages involved over
> the weekend.
>
> Distutils is currently part of the standard python library. As such, it's
> released with pytho
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:21:28 -0700, P.J. Eby wrote:
And there's nothing all that special about setuptools' subclassing of
build_ext; in fact, if you look back in the archives here, other people
have done equivalent subclassing to support dynamic library building. I
haven't checked their c
Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
> I'm struggling to articulate something here. When the maintainer of
> the stable branch of a platform that I rely on says "The fact that
> upgrading to our recent stable release will break this critical
> functionality is so-and-so's fault, not ours." this reduces m
2009/10/5 Jeremy Sanders :
> As a general question, is there any planned project to improve the state of
> distutils or replace it? It appears to be one of the weakest parts of the
> Python system and needs replacing with something much cleaner, better
> documented and more powerful.
Tarek's worki
Bill Janssen kirjoitti:
Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
I'm struggling to articulate something here. When the maintainer of
the stable branch of a platform that I rely on says "The fact that
upgrading to our recent stable release will break this critical
functionality is so-and-so's fault, not
Alex Grönholm wrote:
> Does your bug still exist in Distribute? If so, please report it at
> http://bitbucket.org/tarek/distribute/ (assuming that bitbucket is
> operational, which it currently isn't)
Sorry, Alex, I don't know about Distribute, don't (particularly) care.
If you care, test for it
Bill Janssen kirjoitti:
Alex Grönholm wrote:
Does your bug still exist in Distribute? If so, please report it at
http://bitbucket.org/tarek/distribute/ (assuming that bitbucket is
operational, which it currently isn't)
Sorry, Alex, I don't know about Distribute, don't (particularly)
On 5 Oct, 2009, at 16:25, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
For beginners this issue is a showstopper that they cannot resolve
without help.
I'm a relative beginner to distutils/setuptools/distribute, but a
long time configuration/build/packaging professional. You're
mist
On 5 Oct, 2009, at 16:37, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in
replacement for 2.6.2 but requires the replacement of another
component as well. That can be a problem in organizations with
strict configuration management
On 5 Oct, 2009, at 13:54, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Ronald Oussoren > wrote:
Nobody will adopt it until they are forced to. This unfortunate bug
means people are forced to quicker than expected. I don't think
that's
an actual problem.
This is a problem, it means 2.
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> The proper answer is : Setuptools is on the top of Distutils and has
> to evolve with it.
> And since it monkey patches it, it has to be changed when a Distutils
> release breaks it.
I want to note that the issue here is not monkey-patching, it is
subclassing the command class
P.J. Eby kirjoitti:
At 11:53 AM 10/5/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And
*especially*
> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
> python-committers list of something this major.
Well "this major
K. Richard Pixley wrote:
> Alex Grönholm wrote:
>> There is a lack of consensus regarding how exactly they should work.
>> If we are having this much trouble deciding how a third party tool
>> should work, it is certainly not going to be merged into distutils
>> until those issues have been resolve
An update on the immediate issue: after discussion elsewhere, it was
decided that there were enough other problems with 2.6.3 to warrant a
quick release of 2.6.4. Tarek has checked in a change to distutils to
unbreak the setuptools currently out in the field. If all goes well,
2.6.4 should b
kiorky wrote:
Hi,
for the folks using virtualenv-distribute, i forked it to make the last 0.6.3
install instead of 0.6.1.
See :
http://bitbucket.org/kiorky/virtualenv-distribute/
Install it:
easy_install
http://distfiles.minitage.org/public/externals/minitage/virtualenv-distribute-1.3.5dev-1.z
2009/10/6 Chris Withers :
> kiorky wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> for the folks using virtualenv-distribute, i forked it to make the last
>> 0.6.3
>> install instead of 0.6.1.
>>
>> See :
>> http://bitbucket.org/kiorky/virtualenv-distribute/
>>
>> Install it:
>>
>> easy_install
>>
>> http://distfiles.minitage
2009/10/6 Lennart Regebro :
> I think it's a fork of Virtualenv, no? Which uses a fork of distribute. :)
I meant that it uses a fork of setuptools, obviously
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
_
It's just a fork of virtualenv to use distribute.
It does not use a fork of distribute but distribute itself ;)
Lennart Regebro a écrit :
> 2009/10/6 Lennart Regebro :
>> I think it's a fork of Virtualenv, no? Which uses a fork of distribute. :)
>
> I meant that it uses a fork of setuptools, obvi
Anyway, it's released now on pypi as virtualenv-distribute-1.3.4.2.
The code is also merged in florian branch and it has been decided that's the
main repository.
kiorky a écrit :
> It's just a fork of virtualenv to use distribute.
> It does not use a fork of distribute but distribute itself ;)
>
2009/10/6 kiorky :
> Anyway, it's released now on pypi as virtualenv-distribute-1.3.4.2.
>
> The code is also merged in florian branch and it has been decided that's the
> main repository.
What is the florian branch, and in general, could you provide some
more info. Your emails are very cryptic. :
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> Installing distribute is therefore not problematic for most people, if
> they know that the project exists. The fact that distribute is a
> seperate project from setuptools can be a problem for people:
> installing a bugfix release for a software product that we're alrea
Hi Lennart,
If i read 'virtualenv-distribute 1.3.4.2 on pypi'
I can do some googling or even do some Pypi searching for
'virtualenv-distribute'.
Thus, the first link found may be [1].
On this link, the second sentence is:
"""
The fork was started by Philip Jenvey at
http://bitbucket.org/pjen
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> For me, it's more a matter of "OS X 10.6 already comes with setuptools;
> how can I mitigate the impact of this buggy unmaintained package on the
> systems I'm building to deploy on OS X?". Adding distribute to the mix,
> however good it is, d
At 09:20 AM 10/6/2009 +0300, Alex Grönholm wrote:
P.J. Eby kirjoitti:
At 11:53 AM 10/5/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
> python-committer
2009/10/6 P.J. Eby :
> Yes, but that's got nothing to do with the bug that's been being discussed.
> The same change bit pywin32, and it doesn't use setuptools at all.
True. The problem was a badly documented interface, which meant people
used it in one way, but a bug fix assumed another, and *ka
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:25:04 -0700, kiorky wrote:
"""
The fork was started by Philip Jenvey at
http://bitbucket.org/pjenvey/virtualenv-distribute/ and this version by
Florian
Schulze lives at http://bitbucket.org/fschulze/virtualenv-distribute/
"""
[1] - http://pypi.python.org/pypi/virtuale
On Oct 6, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> For me, it's more a matter of "OS X 10.6 already comes with setuptools;
>> how can I mitigate the impact of this buggy unmaintained package on the
>> systems I'm building to deploy on OS X
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
>> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
>> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
>> python-committers list of something this major.
>
> Well "this maj
Tres Seaver wrote:
>
> Bugfixes which break backward compatibility in "minor" relaseses are
> "major" fouls, period.
Sure, but what does backward compatibility even mean for distutils ? Not
much, as any non trivial extension needs to use undocumented
implementation details.
> As PJE points out, t
2009/10/7 Tres Seaver :
> The fact that the bugfix (to distutils) was committed by folks who are
> *alos* pusing a fork to setuptools is what raises the eyebrows here.
Eh... why? Tarek has become the lead for Python packaging programs and
is trying hard to fix the sad state of Python packaging. It
On Oct 4, 2009, at 10:07 , P.J. Eby wrote:
At 03:49 PM 10/3/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Notice that this has been fixed in Ubuntu already with a patched
version of setuptools
Is the patch or an equivalent already in the setuptools tracker?
And if not, can someone please post it there? Th
On 07.10.2009, at 01:08, Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:25:04 -0700, kiorky
wrote:
"""
The fork was started by Philip Jenvey at
http://bitbucket.org/pjenvey/virtualenv-distribute/ and this
version by Florian
Schulze lives at http://bitbucket.org/fschulze/virtualenv-di
On 07.10.2009, at 01:08, Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:25:04 -0700, kiorky
wrote:
"""
The fork was started by Philip Jenvey at
http://bitbucket.org/pjenvey/virtualenv-distribute/ and this
version by Florian
Schulze lives at http://bitbucket.org/fschulze/virtualenv-di
On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:18 AM, Florian Schulze wrote:
This way one - who stumbled upon the bitbucket site - does not have
to pull the source tree and look in docs/index.rst in order to get
the URL to the bug tracker. (I had a bug to report a couple of days).
The launchpad bugtracker is for v
On 07.10.2009, at 16:21, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:18 AM, Florian Schulze wrote:
This way one - who stumbled upon the bitbucket site - does not
have to pull the source tree and look in docs/index.rst in order
to get the URL to the bug tracker. (I had a bug to report
On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Florian Schulze wrote:
On 07.10.2009, at 16:21, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:18 AM, Florian Schulze wrote:
This way one - who stumbled upon the bitbucket site - does not
have to pull the source tree and look in docs/index.rst in order
to
88 matches
Mail list logo
