Zachary Ware wrote:
> Just a quick note to mention that Dennis Sweeney (CC'd) has been added
> to the Python Triage team:
This is long overdue.
Welcome Dennis.
___
python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an e
Congratulations.
___
python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.p
Welcome :-)
___
python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python
My two cents: I think this should be a little more liberal. At beta 1, freeze
the addition of new features but continue to tweak the implementation with code
clean-ups, additional tests, algorithmic improvements, and better docs. For
many of the devs (and users), the first time we get to exerci
Welcome!
___
python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.or
Are you saying that this whole thread of issues will be ignored unless we all
go to another forum, post a dozen separate issues, and recreate all of the
discussion that already these threads?
That doesn't seem reasonable to me for several reasons: 1) it is unlikely that
the full thread content
Another essential bit of tooling for the migration:
* Before filing a bug report or feature request, we ask people to search to see
if there is already an issue in progress or a resolved issue on the topic. We
need to make sure that on GitHub issues, people can still search our voluminous
his
> On Aug 27, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Mariatta wrote:
>
> (cross posting to python-committers, python-dev, core-workflow)
>
> PEP 581: Using GitHub Issues has been accepted by the steering council, but
> PEP 588: GitHub Issues Migration plan is still in progress.
>
> I'd like to hear from core dev
> On Aug 27, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Mariatta wrote:
>
> (cross posting to python-committers, python-dev, core-workflow)
>
> PEP 581: Using GitHub Issues has been accepted by the steering council, but
> PEP 588: GitHub Issues Migration plan is still in progress.
>
> I'd like to hear from core deve
Thanks. Just sent it.
___
python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/
Message archived at
https://
Where you I send the info? I'm not sure which email address you're using.
Raymond
___
python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/list
These lists look mostly correct to me. I remember active participation by all
but seven names on the proposed canonical list.
Thanks for doing this otherwise thankless work.
Raymond
___
python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 7:44 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
>
> Does this mean that https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/6641 isn't going
> to get in 3.8?
I've been hoping for this PR to land for a good while. If it doesn't go in
today, we should definitely try to get it in the next beta release.
> On Mar 24, 2019, at 9:14 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>
> I propose to promote Stefan Behnel (aka scoder on the tracker and GitHub) as
> a core developer.
Strong +1 from me. Stefan has demonstrated deep knowledge, good judgment, and
will be around for the long-term. IMO, he is a first ra
> On Mar 22, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Julien Palard and me (Victor) propose to promote Stéphane Wirtel as
> core developer. We open a vote until March 31 (~one week). "[A
> promotion] is granted by receiving at least two-thirds positive votes
> in a core team vote and no veto
> On Feb 4, 2019, at 4:11 AM, Ernest W. Durbin III wrote:
>
> The top five vote-getters are:
>
> - Barry Warsaw
> - Brett Cannon
> - Carol Willing
> - Guido van Rossum
> - Nick Coghlan
Congratulations to the new council members! I wish you all the best.
Thank you to everyone else on the tic
> On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:15 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> To help with growing the team, putting it more into the spotlight and
> give them a place to meet, demonstrate their work and a stage to
> invite new developers, we decided to give Python Core Developers free
> entry to future EuroPython
At the developer sprints this week, we collectively decided to grant core
committer status to Emily and Lisa.
Please join me in welcoming them to the team.
Raymond
---
Emily is the Director of Engineering at Cuttlesoft. She has previously attended
two Language Su
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 6:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I think it would be worth studying the governance structure (*) of a
> bunch of open source projects picked according to a set of criteria:
>
> - major project in # of users and contributors
> - non BDFL-governed
> - mostly volunteer-dr
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> I would like to remove myself entirely from the decision process. I'll still
> be there for a while as an ordinary core dev, and I'll still be available to
> mentor people -- possibly more available. But I'm basically giving myself a
-1: dislike
> On May 2, 2018, at 2:49 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> The poll is on the *current* PEP. I propose 4 choices:
>
> * +1: you like the PEP
> * -1: you dislike the PEP
> * 0: you are not sure if you like it or not, or you have no opinon
> * don't reply to this poll :-)
>
> Just reply
> On Apr 13, 2018, at 5:13 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose Petr Viktorin as a specialist core developer,
> focusing on extension module imports.
+1 This is an area that could use more attention from someone who really cares
about it.
Raymond
nt is to protect the vibrancy of the Python community rather
than acting with an intent to punish, humiliate, or discredit the affected
person.
Other than than those minor differences, it is basically the same thing ;-)
Raymond Hettinger
___
pytho
itted,
Raymond Hettinger
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
tion channel" rather than CoC which
should be sparingly used for only egregious issues. Also, if a real CoC issue
does arise, I think any actions taken need to have multiple assents from a
group of decision makers rather than having one person b
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 2:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I wanted to get initial feedback on things we can easily tweak:
Overall, the new workflow is mostly positive. The tooling looks great and it
seems to have increased the number of participants.
There is a disconnect between discussions on
> On Jan 26, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 at 00:05 Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Mariatta Wijaya has been working hard to become a Python core developer. At
> this point she has worked with several of us and I think
provide mentorship and assistance to her as needed
after she is granted commit rights.
Raymond Hettinger
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https
> On Dec 18, 2016, at 9:26 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> So, if you have an opinion, please vote for one of these three options:
> • Don't slip 3.5.3. and 3.4.6.
> • Slip 3.5.3 and 3.4.6 by two weeks to match 3.6.0.
> • Slip 3.5.3 and 3.4.6 by a whole month, to give 3.6.0 the a
> On Nov 22, 2016, at 6:57 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Should I revert these changes?
I don't think reverting any of these would improve the release.
I vote for them to stay.
Raymond
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@pytho
> On Sep 25, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>
> I want to propose to give commit privileges to INADA Naoki. He's the guy
> behind compact dict implementation for CPython 3.6, which was a super complex
> patch.
I would like to see him do some work reviewing other people's patches an
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 10:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> Does your offer to mentor Davin still stand,
Yes.
Raymond
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Cond
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> Who wants to be Davin's mentor and tell him to do the steps outlined in
> https://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html#gaining-commit-privileges ?
Davin already knows what to do, he just needs the commit bit flipped.
FWIW, I had volunteer
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I guess I'm just worried about the health of this project. I'm doing what I
> can through the migration to GitHub to make it easier for others to get
> involved while making it easier for us to accept the work of others, but the
> maintena
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 11:43 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
> As a followup to this, I have now removed all DSA keys. People who only
> had DSA keys will need to submit new keys to hgaccounts@.
That was rather sudden and harsh.
Effectively, you just revoked my commit rights.
I'll wrestle with th
> On Jan 10, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
> I agree with MAL, it is more beneficial to trust people and give out commit
> access early.
For comparison, I think that is the norm for paid work. At companies I've
worked for, new programmers are given check-in rights on the first
> Did he already contributed to CPython?
> What is his nickname on the bug tracker?
> Can we see his previous contributions?
Davin has already devoted significant time to researching
180+ open issues for multiprocessing and getting up to speed
to the history of multiprocessing work. His tracker
: contributing to multiprocessing
> From: Davin Potts
> To: Raymond Hettinger
>
> Hi Raymond --
>
> You asked if I'd be interested in becoming a maintainer for the
> multiprocessing package -- I've continued thinking about what I can do or
> trust myself to do an
On Oct 5, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le 05/10/2014 21:02, Terry Reedy a écrit :
>>
>> If you are annoyed, lets discuss specifics and see if we can agree on
>> refined guidelines to give him. It could even be "leave Benjamin's
>> issues alone".
>
> I'd like him to stop blindly
On Sep 12, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> The
> new VM is a bit beefier and has what I think is better network
> connectivity, so hopefully that will improving the speed of repository
> operations.
Thanks Benjamin, the repo is noticeably faster.
Raymond
On Jan 25, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
> I'd like to extend the Derby by two more weeks and add a fourth beta.
There's no harm in adding a fourth beta and if it improves the release
you should probably do so. We don't owe anyone a particular release
date and AFAICT no one is holdin
On May 24, 2013, at 7:09 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think that's overly complicated. I don't see why we need anything
> more than simply NEWS/3.4, NEWS/3.3, etc. and just split the files per
> feature release since that's the interest (and merge) boundary.
+1 from me. This is a straight-forwa
On Mar 19, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> I would like to propose Roger Serwy be given commit privileges to work
> on IDLE.
+1 Roger would do a great job.
Raymond___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.p
On May 1, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> I'd like to release Python 3.2.1 on May 21, with a release candidate
> on May 14. Please bring any issues you think need to be fixed in it
> to my attention by assigning "release blocker" status in the tracker.
Thanks to http://www.python.org/
On Apr 3, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> I'd like to propose giving committer rights to Nadeem Vawda.
>
> +1 to this proposal. Please ensure that Nadeem Vawda is "interested" too.
>
... and that he's interested in being a l
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:53 AM, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou ha scritto:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Ross Logerwall has been contributing patches for several months (both
>> bug fixes and new features). 28 changesets bear his name. I would like
>> to propose him as a committer (is this still the ap
On Mar 4, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Antoine and me are starting the conversion now (it takes quite
> a while to get the SVN repo and convert it, so we're doing it
> overnight).
Thanks for stepping up and getting this done.
Raymond
___
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> It says they are "highly discouraged" because "absolute imports are
> more portable and usually more readable", but now that people have had
> a chance to use explicit relative imports, do people still believe
> this? I mean if we truly believed
On Jan 29, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
>> So my "pronouncement" here is: if reviewed properly, the patch will go
>> in 3.2rc2. If this needs a few more days, so be it. And should the
>> testing after 3.2rc2 reveal deficiencies, we
On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> As teh reporter of that bug I should like to say in Victor's, Antoine's and
> David's support that the module is so broken without this patch that the
> module should not really have been included in a production release.
>
> Even if the curr
+1
On Jan 8, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Based on his work to diagnose and fix many issues related to OS X and/or
> IDLE/tk, I would like to propose that we give Ned Deily commit rights.
> He seems to already have developer rights on the tracker.
>
> Regards
>
> Ant
+1
On Jan 8, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Two years ago, Eli Bendersky submitted to the tracker one of several
> duplicate reports about problems with difflib.SequenceMatcher. After I
> consolidated and closed all issues but one, he wrote me, said he wanted to
> get more involved in
On Dec 5, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> Do we wait until after the 3.2 release now, or
> just until after the holidays?
+1 for waiting until after the 3.2 release.
It is just around the corner.
Raymond
___
python-committers mailing list
On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I was surprised to learn that Dave Malcolm doesn't have commit
> privileges yet. He has worked on the gdb integration and other issues. I
> think it would be time to give him the right to commit to the
> repository, what do you think?
I just
On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I was surprised to learn that Dave Malcolm doesn't have commit
> privileges yet. He has worked on the gdb integration and other issues. I
> think it would be time to give him the right to commit to the
> repository, what do you think?
The usu
On Jun 28, 2010, at 4:17 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> I'm delaying the 3.2 alpha1 release by one week; I don't have enough time
>>> to sort through all the possible issues and get acquainted with the release
>>> machinery this weekend.
>>
>> Should we perhaps delay the
I just meant to +1 the "we need to make a new micro-release right now"
paragraph. Logistically, I think it needs to be a full binary release
but it could be identical to 3.1 except for the one patch.
Looking at Misc/NEWS, there are a number of worthy bugfixes already in.
Why not just do a regul
> 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
[Mark Hammond]
It sounds like you want people to hold feedback until you have finished the PEP - which will come complete with a *decision* about
what to switch to, or not to switch at all?
It may be that people are concerned that if the PEP will be presented as a decision being made, the oppo
I am placing a freeze on the release30-maint branch in 15 minutes.
Yea! 3.0.1 is on its way :-)
Raymond
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
[A.M. Kuchling]
Does someone want to talk to them about 3.0? Please let me know
privately and I'll pass along Alex's contact info.
Okay, will send you my info by private email.
Raymond
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.or
[Barry Warsaw]
So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My
suggestion:
15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4
05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2
19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3
03-Dec-2008 3.0 final
Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do
we need two more betas?
Yes to bot
IMHO if there's still big scary stuff out there, calling this a
release candidate does us no good PR-wise, and does no good for our
users. 3.0 is going to be scary enough for them as it is - cutting a
release candidate that we either know is broken, or else has
significant changes, is a very bad i
63 matches
Mail list logo
