Am 30.06.2010 16:43, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
> 2010/6/30 Georg Brandl :
>> All in all, hearing the arguments in this thread I agree that a month
>> more time for development is a good thing, and I will update the release
>> schedule accordingly.
>
> You could just throw in another alpha. It nev
Le mercredi 30 juin 2010 à 09:43 -0500, Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
> 2010/6/30 Georg Brandl :
> > All in all, hearing the arguments in this thread I agree that a month
> > more time for development is a good thing, and I will update the release
> > schedule accordingly.
>
> You could just throw i
2010/6/30 Georg Brandl :
> All in all, hearing the arguments in this thread I agree that a month
> more time for development is a good thing, and I will update the release
> schedule accordingly.
You could just throw in another alpha. It never hurts to get the code
out there IMO.
--
Regards,
Be
Am 29.06.2010 05:32, schrieb Senthil Kumaran:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:28 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>
>> The ones I want to get done are PEPs 382 and 384.
>
> Just to have the direct information on these PEPs inline.
>
> PEP 382 - Namespace Packages
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-03
Le lundi 28 juin 2010 14:21:48, vous avez écrit :
> > For the 3.2 final, I would like to mark this issue has a blocker:
> >
> >http://bugs.python.org/issue8611
>
> I went ahead and marked it as such - the RM reviews the open release
> blockers anyway before deciding whether or not to make a r
>> The ones I want to get done are PEPs 382 and 384.
>
> I'd like to help with these. I remember we had a long thread a few weeks back
> about PEP 382 (namespace packages) and there are some tricky issues to work
> out. I need to go back and re-read that thread. Maybe Jason and Eric want to
> s
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:24, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 15:12, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> I really think we need to make the switch to Mercurial as soon as 2.7 final
>> is
>> out. It's been long enough.
>
> I got back into working on it last week (using a branch map to clean
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 15:12, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I really think we need to make the switch to Mercurial as soon as 2.7 final is
> out. It's been long enough.
I got back into working on it last week (using a branch map to clean
up all the feature branches we're going to shed for the conversio
On Jun 28, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>The ones I want to get done are PEPs 382 and 384.
I'd like to help with these. I remember we had a long thread a few weeks back
about PEP 382 (namespace packages) and there are some tricky issues to work
out. I need to go back and re-read th
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:28 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>
> The ones I want to get done are PEPs 382 and 384.
Just to have the direct information on these PEPs inline.
PEP 382 - Namespace Packages
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0382/
PEP 383 - Definition of Stable ABI
http://www.python.or
Am 28.06.2010 23:30, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
> Le dimanche 27 juin 2010 à 19:07 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
>>> 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
Le dimanche 27 juin 2010 à 19:07 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> > 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 entire sched
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
On Jun 27, 2010, at 01:58 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:07, "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.
>>
>
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Le dimanche 27 juin 2010 11:17:24, Georg Brandl a écrit :
>> 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.
Le dimanche 27 juin 2010 11:17:24, Georg Brandl a écrit :
> 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.
For the 3.2 final, I would like to mark this issue has a blo
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:17 PM, 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 t
"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 entire schedule by one month? A number of
> things that pe
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:07, "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 entire schedule by one mont
> 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 entire schedule by one month? A number of
things that people want for 3.2 haven't happened
Hi,
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.
Georg
--
Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less.
Four shall be the number of space
21 matches
Mail list logo
