Re: [python-committers] Anatoly (again)

2014-10-15 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 16 October 2014 06:54, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 15/10/2014 22:49, Ethan Furman a écrit : >> On 10/15/2014 01:25 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: On 10/06/2014 02:56 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Why is Anatoly posting to python-dev? I tho

Re: [python-committers] Mercurial 3.1 and 2.6 branches are not "inactive"

2014-10-15 Thread Ned Deily
In article <20141015165846.2b7a7...@limelight.wooz.org>, Barry Warsaw wrote: > 2.6 for sure. I don't know what actually has to happen to mark them closed, > but there will not be another 2.6 release. Benjamin has taken care of closing both the 2.6 and 3.1 branches. RIP -- Ned Deily, n...@ac

Re: [python-committers] Mercurial 3.1 and 2.6 branches are not "inactive"

2014-10-15 Thread Jesus Cea
On 15/10/14 22:58, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 15, 2014, at 01:47 PM, Ned Deily wrote: > >> Since both 2.6 and 3.1 are now retired, their branches should be marked >> as closed at this point, like earlier retired releases. Barry? >> Benjamin? > > 2.6 for sure. I don't know what actually has

Re: [python-committers] Anatoly (again)

2014-10-15 Thread Ethan Furman
On 10/15/2014 01:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Le 15/10/2014 22:49, Ethan Furman a écrit : I've been promoted to list-moderator for two other Python lists to help deal with Anatoly's posts -- one more would not be a burden. If the burden is mostly handling Anatoly's email, perhaps we should s

Re: [python-committers] Mercurial 3.1 and 2.6 branches are not "inactive"

2014-10-15 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Oct 15, 2014, at 01:47 PM, Ned Deily wrote: >Since both 2.6 and 3.1 are now retired, their branches should be marked >as closed at this point, like earlier retired releases. Barry? >Benjamin? 2.6 for sure. I don't know what actually has to happen to mark them closed, but there will not be

Re: [python-committers] Anatoly (again)

2014-10-15 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Le 15/10/2014 22:49, Ethan Furman a écrit : > On 10/15/2014 01:25 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: >>> On 10/06/2014 02:56 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Why is Anatoly posting to python-dev? I thought he was banned when he was banned from th

Re: [python-committers] Anatoly (again)

2014-10-15 Thread Ethan Furman
On 10/15/2014 01:25 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote: On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: On 10/06/2014 02:56 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Why is Anatoly posting to python-dev? I thought he was banned when he was banned from the tracker. I refuse to waste my time trying to reason with him, a

Re: [python-committers] Mercurial 3.1 and 2.6 branches are not "inactive"

2014-10-15 Thread Ned Deily
In article <543ed795.3010...@jcea.es>, Jesus Cea wrote: > Mercurial branches 3.1 and 2.6 are not "inactive". They are not "merged": > > """ > [jcea@babylon5 cpython]$ hg branches > default93408:fd658692db3a > 2.793384:7ba47bbfe38d > 3.1

Re: [python-committers] Anatoly (again)

2014-10-15 Thread Eli Bendersky
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > On 10/06/2014 02:56 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Why is Anatoly posting to python-dev? I thought he was banned when he > was banned > > from the tracker. > > > > I refuse to waste my time trying to reason with him, and I consider the > "just >

[python-committers] Mercurial 3.1 and 2.6 branches are not "inactive"

2014-10-15 Thread Jesus Cea
Mercurial branches 3.1 and 2.6 are not "inactive". They are not "merged": """ [jcea@babylon5 cpython]$ hg branches default93408:fd658692db3a 2.793384:7ba47bbfe38d 3.190584:c7b93519807a 2.690420:23a60d89dbd4