On 2 April 2015 at 05:05, Matthias Klose wrote:
> We'll have the 2.7.10 release in the coming months. This will be the first
> release with a two digit subminor version number, so please could we prepare
> for
> that early? Feature tests in python are unfortunately way too often based on
> versi
On 2 April 2015 at 04:09, Ethan Furman wrote:
> I like one massive patch, myself. :)
Aye, I'm also in the "squash for the clean history" approach (FWIW,
making this less of an either/or question is one of the benefits
Gerrit offers over other code review systems, since you can combine
posting a
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Suggesting to push the following patch to the 2.7 branch.
LGTM. I actively use 2.7 at work so should be able to at least put it
through its normal paces. Will be interesting to see if any of our
internal software (which is generally fairly a
We'll have the 2.7.10 release in the coming months. This will be the first
release with a two digit subminor version number, so please could we prepare for
that early? Feature tests in python are unfortunately way too often based on
version comparisons. Suggesting to push the following patch to t
I like one massive patch, myself. :)
--
~Ethan~
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:56 PM Victor Stinner
wrote:
> If you choose to merge, I would prefer that you rebase your changes
> before to avoid multiple merges. IMO the best to avoid merges at all
> :-)
>
It's sounding like one massive patch is the best option for people.
>
> Did someone review
If you choose to merge, I would prefer that you rebase your changes
before to avoid multiple merges. IMO the best to avoid merges at all
:-)
Did someone review your large change?
Victor
2015-04-01 18:09 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
> The implementation for PEP 488 is basically done (sans Windows ins
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:38 PM Benjamin Peterson
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:09, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > The implementation for PEP 488 is basically done (sans Windows installer
> > stuff). I did the work in a features repo at
> > https://hg.python.org/features/pep-488/ . Once I have
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 12:09, Brett Cannon wrote:
> The implementation for PEP 488 is basically done (sans Windows installer
> stuff). I did the work in a features repo at
> https://hg.python.org/features/pep-488/ . Once I have addressed reviewer
> comments at http://bugs.python.org/issue23731 ,
The implementation for PEP 488 is basically done (sans Windows installer
stuff). I did the work in a features repo at
https://hg.python.org/features/pep-488/ . Once I have addressed reviewer
comments at http://bugs.python.org/issue23731 , would people prefer I
simply push the features repo to hg.py
10 matches
Mail list logo