Am 07.12.2010 12:25, schrieb Jesus Cea:
> On 05/12/10 20:00, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Personally, I'd still like to defer beta1 until after the Mercurial
>> switch (or alternatively, do the final 3.2 release from subversion
>> as Raymond suggested).
>
> I would vote +1 to deferral of beta1 unti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/12/10 20:00, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Personally, I'd still like to defer beta1 until after the Mercurial
> switch (or alternatively, do the final 3.2 release from subversion
> as Raymond suggested).
I would vote +1 to deferral of beta1 until
On 12/5/2010 8:49 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd still like to defer beta1 until after the Mercurial
>>> switch (or alternatively, do the final 3.2 release from subversion
>>> as Raymond suggested).
>>
>> What would these proposed delayings / deferments achieve?
>
> They will pre
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:49 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd still like to defer beta1 until after the Mercurial
>>> switch (or alternatively, do the final 3.2 release from subversion
>>> as Raymond suggested).
>>
>> What would these proposed delayings / deferments achieve?
>
> The
>> Personally, I'd still like to defer beta1 until after the Mercurial
>> switch (or alternatively, do the final 3.2 release from subversion
>> as Raymond suggested).
>
> What would these proposed delayings / deferments achieve?
They will prevent the mess from happening that would happen if we sw
-On [20101205 20:07], Antoine Pitrou (solip...@pitrou.net) wrote:
>What would these proposed delayings / deferments achieve?
Peace and quiet for the release team during the release.
Why confound the situation by forcing a migration of the VCS in the middle
of release time? It's not like postponin
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 20:00 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> Am 05.12.2010 12:11, schrieb Georg Brandl:
> > Am 05.12.2010 11:26, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
> >> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 5, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> >>
Am 05.12.2010 12:11, schrieb Georg Brandl:
> Am 05.12.2010 11:26, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Raymond Hettinger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
Am 05.12.2010 11:26, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> 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.
It would be nice to h
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 Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 16:25, Georg Brandl wrote:
> As sad as it is, that's true. It's just unfair to developers and
> infrastructure providers to switch on such a short notice without a
> testing period.
Yeah, I'm very sorry. The last step in the conversion has proven
pretty annoying to get rig
Am 04.12.2010 15:01, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
> Am 02.12.2010 04:16, schrieb Jesus Cea:
>> On 01/12/10 22:47, R. David Murray wrote:
>>> Mercurial can't become the primary version system until after we've had
>>> a test-and-work-out-the-bugs period, so IMO that schedule is going to
>>> have to be
Am 02.12.2010 04:16, schrieb Jesus Cea:
> On 01/12/10 22:47, R. David Murray wrote:
>> Mercurial can't become the primary version system until after we've had
>> a test-and-work-out-the-bugs period, so IMO that schedule is going to
>> have to be modified.
>
> After two years since Mercurial decisi
Thanks for the tips David and Georg (and Michael for trying :) I knew
about svnmerge avail, my question was about filtering).
Cheers
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committer
Am 02.12.2010 04:08, schrieb R. David Murray:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:19:25 +0100, wrote:
>> Le 01/12/2010 21:48, R. David Murray a écrit :
>> > My understanding of the current status of svnmerge block is that
>> > you should use it if it helps you and not worry about it otherwise.
>> > Georg an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/12/10 22:47, R. David Murray wrote:
> Mercurial can't become the primary version system until after we've had
> a test-and-work-out-the-bugs period, so IMO that schedule is going to
> have to be modified.
After two years since Mercurial decision
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:19:25 +0100, wrote:
> Le 01/12/2010 21:48, R. David Murray a écrit :
> > My understanding of the current status of svnmerge block is that
> > you should use it if it helps you and not worry about it otherwise.
> > Georg and I and some others find it useful for managing our
Le 01/12/2010 21:48, R. David Murray a écrit :
> My understanding of the current status of svnmerge block is that
> you should use it if it helps you and not worry about it otherwise.
> Georg and I and some others find it useful for managing our own
> patches, but otherwise I think that it isn't be
2010/12/1 Terry Reedy :
> I would like to commit a couple of new feature patches in the next couple of
> days for #9299 (if no one else does it) and #10534 (working on that). It
> appears to be somewhat customary to follow such patches with 3.1/2.7 blocks,
> but Georg implied in another message th
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:23:18 +0100, Jesus Cea wrote:
> On 01/12/10 21:48, R. David Murray wrote:
> > My understanding of the current status of svnmerge block is that
> > you should use it if it helps you and not worry about it otherwise.
> > Georg and I and some others find it useful for managing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/12/10 21:48, R. David Murray wrote:
> My understanding of the current status of svnmerge block is that
> you should use it if it helps you and not worry about it otherwise.
> Georg and I and some others find it useful for managing our own
> patch
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:48 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>> .. So is it alright if I make
>> the commits and simply note in the commit messages that they are for a
>> new feature and should not be merged backwards?
>
> I think that's fine. I'm not even sure it is necessary to mention
> that it is a
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:53:21 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I would like to commit a couple of new feature patches in the next
> couple of days for #9299 (if no one else does it) and #10534 (working on
> that). It appears to be somewhat customary to follow such patches with
> 3.1/2.7 blocks, but
I would like to commit a couple of new feature patches in the next
couple of days for #9299 (if no one else does it) and #10534 (working on
that). It appears to be somewhat customary to follow such patches with
3.1/2.7 blocks, but Georg implied in another message that the process is
obsolete i
25 matches
Mail list logo
