Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

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. Essen

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw > 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 "homage to

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

2009/7/2 Christian Heimes : > Barry Warsaw wrote: >> I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download pages. >> >> There will be no 3.0.2. > > +1 for your decision. > > Are there any known incompatibilities that could break a Python 3.0 > script on 3.1? This is the short list:

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

Barry Warsaw wrote: > I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download pages. > > There will be no 3.0.2. +1 for your decision. Are there any known incompatibilities that could break a Python 3.0 script on 3.1? ___ python-committers

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

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 sho

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

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

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 15:21, 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 >

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to"release26-maint"?

> 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 ha

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

Mark Dickinson wrote: > Speaking as one of the people who occasionally remembers to backport > to 3.0 (though clearly I failed with r69846), it wouldn't bother me at all > if there were no 3.0.2. I can't speak for any of the other backporters, of > course. > > I'm not really sure who 3.0.2 would

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > [Brett] >> 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

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

> TBH, I'm not sure there's enough interest in doing it. Then announce, to the widest public possible, that there will not be a 3.0.2 release ever. It's just that the status quo is unsatisfying. Regards, Martin ___ python-committers mailing list python-

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

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

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:01, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > > The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much > > as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we > > have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x. > > > > > > If I remember correctly I believe we deci

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

> The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much > as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we > have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x. > > > If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that > 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

>> Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk >> is...painful. Because of the (lack of) speed. > > Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority list, > then? That's one of the typical "we" questions... Currently, there is a single person working on that tra

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 14:56, R. David Murray wrote: > I can see it now...the TV and movie track at PyCon 2010, > with attendance mandatory for anyone wanting to participate > in the Core sprint... We actually had a room or two for evening videos at a PyCon (both?) in Dallas. Somebody brought the

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:46, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:34:38PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote: > > Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk > > is...painful. Because of the (lack of) speed. > > S

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 at 11:43, Brett Cannon wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw 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 "homage to 1.6" release. We can code name it "Her

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:34:38PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote: > Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk > is...painful. Because of the (lack of) speed. Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority li

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw 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 "homage to 1.6" release. >> > > We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that referenc

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

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 "homage to 1.6" release. We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that reference!) too-much-monty-python-as-a-child-ly y'rs, -Barry P

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote: The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x. No, we have 2.7, 2.6, 3.2, and 3.1. Using svnmerge to commit to three branches

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2 release. We can call it the "homage to 1.6" release. Anthony On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jul 2, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language sum

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

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 twe

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

ust 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>

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x. On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven < asmo...@in-nomine.org> wrote: > -On [20090702 17:15]

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2009/7/2 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven : >> -On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (j...@jcea.es) wrote: >>> Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were >>> merges are pain

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

2009/7/2 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven : > -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 merg

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

-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, so that would make your comment moot. -- Jeroen

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

-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 :-).

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 00:58, 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. It's another tree to checkout and patch. Personally, I was always of the belief that if someone wanted to fix doc

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

Speaking as a past release manager, the reason that things like that didn't get merged is because... drumroll... no-one merged them. It's another tree to checkout and patch. Personally, I was always of the belief that if someone wanted to fix docs (or comments, or other things like that) in a maint

Re: [python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

2009/7/2 Jesus Cea : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I have found a few flaws in 2.6 documentation. I was going to correct > them when I found they are already solved in trunk in r69846, done by > mark.dickinson in february. > > Is there any reason for that commit not to be me

[python-committers] Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have found a few flaws in 2.6 documentation. I was going to correct them when I found they are already solved in trunk in r69846, done by mark.dickinson in february. Is there any reason for that commit not to be merged to 2.6 branch?. Am I missing a