[python-committers] core developer status

I have decided for personal reasons to stop contributing to CPython as a core developer, that does not mean I will stop contributing to CPython. So please remove me from the list of core developers and revoke all my access rights. Thank you. Xavier ___

Re: [python-committers] AppVeyor is now required to pass on PRs

FWIW two Appveyor Python builds recently failed (network errors while fetching external libraries): https://ci.appveyor.com/project/python/cpython/build/3.7build10631 https://ci.appveyor.com/project/python/cpython/build/3.7build10636 Xavier ___ python

[python-committers] Travis stuck forever with "Waiting for status to be reported"

This has happened to me at least twice. FWIW closing the PR and re-opening it triggers a new sequence of checks and fixes the problem. Xavier ___ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytho

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On 11/24/2016 02:51 AM, Martin Panter wrote: > FWIW I make heavy use of the Mercurial interactive patch mode. I use > it to filter out any unnecessary generated changes, while selecting > other generated changes relevant to a patch. I.e. I did not know the hg interactive mode, thanks for the tip

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On 11/23/2016 11:49 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > I do not think we should require individual developers committing changes to configure.ac to use a particular version of autoconf when regenerating configure. That is a burden. I do not agree, configure is a file tracked in

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On 11/22/2016 08:16 PM, Ned Deily wrote: > On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:06, Xavier de Gaye wrote: >> The configure file on the default and 3.6 branches have been generated >> with autoconf 2.70 once again. This is annoying when you have to >> maintain patches to this configure f

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

The configure file on the default and 3.6 branches have been generated with autoconf 2.70 once again. This is annoying when you have to maintain patches to this configure file in order to build on a non supported platform. Xavier ___ python-committers m

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On 07/22/2016 06:41 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 at 06:02 Xavier de Gaye mailto:xdeg...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > It seems that the configure file on the default branch has been generated with > autoconf 2.70. Autoconf 2.70 has not yet

Re: [python-committers] Xavier de Gaye

On 07/26/2016 01:22 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > I consider that he knows understand well the process and I don't need > to mentor him. But I will probably continue to help him to review his > patches, answer to questions, etc. It's nice and comforting having you looking over my shoulder, thanks a

[python-committers] autoconf 2.70

It seems that the configure file on the default branch has been generated with autoconf 2.70. Autoconf 2.70 has not yet been released [1]. The differences between the generated configure files with 2.69 and 2.70 are a few lines [3] added by 2.70 with 'runstatedir' in them. The last old discussio

[python-committers] generated importlib files modified by the build

The files generated by Programs/_freeze_importlib.c Python/importlib.h Python/importlib_external.h are modified by the build after the last changeset d32517de5d8c (Issue #26972: Fix some mistakes in importlib-related docstrings.). Xavier ___ pyth