-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Baxter wrote:
Speaking as a past release manager, the reason that things like that
didn't get merged is because... drumroll... no-one merged them.
Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were
merges are painless :-).
2009/7/2 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmo...@in-nomine.org:
-On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (j...@jcea.es) wrote:
Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were
merges are painless :-).
For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges
easier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2009/7/2 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmo...@in-nomine.org:
-On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (j...@jcea.es) wrote:
Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were
merges are painless :-).
For all I
is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another
point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new
syntax or tweak semantics.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
asmo...@in-nomine.org wrote:
-On [20090702 17:15
On Jul 2, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit
that 3.0
is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with
another
point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce
any new
syntax or
On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
If Barry is up for it I am not against it, but if we do go with it I
think it should be a quickie release and then retire 3.0.x completely.
It's not difficult to actually cut the release. What is a pain is
managing all the bugs leading up to
So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2
release.
I'm one of those people who have backported fixes to 3.0, but I do not want
a 3.0.2 to go out now thet 3.1 has been released. The latest version should
not get upstaged. Essentially, 3.1 is what 3.0.x should
On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Sounds like general consensus that 3.0.2 isn't worth it. Is an
announcement on c.l.p.a and something on www.python.org enough to
get the word out that 3.0.2 is not going to happen and 3.0 users
should migrate to 3.1?
I will announce this to
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 at 18:26, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Sounds like general consensus that 3.0.2 isn't worth it. Is an announcement
on c.l.p.a and something on www.python.org enough to get the word out that
3.0.2 is not going to happen and 3.0 users
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org
mailto:ba...@python.org wrote:
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2
release. We
can call it the
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2
release.
I'm one of those people who have backported fixes to 3.0, but I do not want
a 3.0.2 to go out now thet 3.1 has been released. The latest version should
not get upstaged. Essentially,
11 matches
Mail list logo
