On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That seems risky to me. First, it's a new feature. Second, it will be
> largely untested code. I would much rather see dbm.sqlite released as a
> separate package for possible integration into the core for 3.1.
>
> - -Ba
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 3781 warnings.catch_warnings fails gracelessly when recording warnings
I just assigned this one to myself - I'll have a patch up for review
shortly (the patch will revert back to having this be a regression test
suite only feature).
Cheers,
Nick.
___
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
>> beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
>> to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
>> u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Even if I can't contribute very much at the moment, I'm still +1 to
that.
I doubt Python would get nice publicity if we released a 3.0 but had
to
tell everyone, "but don't really use it yet, it may
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Raymond> With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
> Raymond> to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
> Raymond> won't become useless on Windows builds.
>
> My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for
Raymond> With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
Raymond> to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
Raymond> won't become useless on Windows builds.
My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for 2.7 and 3.1.
I'm a bit less sure a
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Guido van Rossum]
>>
>> Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
>> beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
>> to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule
