-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/05/10 18:59, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> Two months later...
>>
>> I can confirm I can clone now http://hg.python.org/cpython/ , using the
>> new Mercurial 1.5.2. If the repository was not overhaulted, this is GOOD.
>>
>> The repository has 443 h
> Two months later...
>
> I can confirm I can clone now http://hg.python.org/cpython/ , using the
> new Mercurial 1.5.2. If the repository was not overhaulted, this is GOOD.
>
> The repository has 443 heads. Half a gig. U.
For daily work, I suggest you use http://code.python.org/hg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/03/10 03:13, Jesus Cea wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 02:21 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:36:42AM +0100, Jesus Cea wrote:
>>> I can't wait for HG. I have read the main cutprit for the delay is the
>>> line-ending issue with MS Wi
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 00:11, Jesus Cea wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/10/2010 04:30 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> On 03/10/2010 08:29 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>> So, in the meantime, if you have ssh access, make your clone via ssh.
>>
>> Could you possibly the ex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/13/2010 04:01 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:11:51 +0100,
> Jesus Cea a écrit :
>>
>> I still don't know how I can clone the cpython repository. Regular
>> clone doesn't work with current repository state.
>
> If you don't n
Le Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:11:51 +0100,
Jesus Cea a écrit :
>
> I still don't know how I can clone the cpython repository. Regular
> clone doesn't work with current repository state.
If you don't need to push back to the Mercurial repositories, you can
use the "other" mirrors at http://code.python.o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2010 04:30 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 08:29 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> So, in the meantime, if you have ssh access, make your clone via ssh.
>
> Could you possibly the exact command to use to clone cpython HG
> repository?. I can
On Mar 10, 2010, at 04:30 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
>Could you possibly the exact command to use to clone cpython HG
>repository?. I can't find it via Google.
Why not create this page and fill in the details there?
http://wiki.python.org/moin/Mercurial
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signatu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2010 08:29 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> So, in the meantime, if you have ssh access, make your clone via ssh.
Could you possibly the exact command to use to clone cpython HG
repository?. I can't find it via Google.
> Otherwise, clone a singl
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:13, Jesus Cea wrote:
> This is a really excellent suggestion, and the perfect excuse to get
> familiar with MQ, that I haven't tried yet.
>
> I have a strange error:
>
> """
> [j...@babylon5 home]$ hg clone http://hg.python.org/cpython/
> destination directory: cpython
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/02/2010 02:21 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:36:42AM +0100, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> I can't wait for HG. I have read the main cutprit for the delay is the
>> line-ending issue with MS Windows developers. Is there anything else
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2010 08:13 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> I wouldn't say there are tons of things, but yes, even if we decided
> to punt on the whole EOL thing for now, that probably wouldn't bring
> the switch much closer unless there's also a bunch of people
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 22:51, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> IIUC, it's not just the EOL issue. There are tons of other things to be
> done, and nobody willing to do them - everybody just wants them to be done.
I wouldn't say there are tons of things, but yes, even if we decided
to punt on the whole
Le Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:34:41 +1100,
Mark Hammond a écrit :
>
> The difference with HG is that the error will not happen at commit
> time, but rather at *push* time - after the local repo is already in
> a bad state. We could suggest all Windows users configure HG to run
> the same hooks locally,
On 3/03/2010 2:11 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
That was also my sentiment. These issues seem to be overestimated, or
perceived as a lack of care for the Windows platform.
This perception is wrong, I do care as much as others about the Windows
platform.
That is not my perception. My perception is
Le Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:18:16 +0100,
Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 18:01, Dirkjan Ochtman
> wrote:
> >> The risk *seems* reasonably low, people on non-Windows platforms
> >> are unlikely to touch those files and they are unlikely to be
> >> edited by hand, and if the cost of fi
On 3/03/2010 2:29 AM, Steve Holden wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:41:45 +0100,
Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
For the EOL issue, there is code, it needs testing. Martin Geisler
(the primary author so far) and I issued a call for testing on
python-dev last week, but without any r
Am 01.03.2010 23:44, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
> 2010/3/1 Brett Cannon :
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 09:31, Eric Smith wrote:
>>> I've been doing it to remind myself of things that need to be merged, or
>>> not. And I believe it used to be used by people doing mass-merges, I'm not
>>> sure if
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Le Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:29:13 -0500,
>> Steve Holden a écrit :
>>> IMHO we got in this mess because we didn't have sufficient involvement
>>> from Windows platform users during the DVCS evaluation - people saw
>>> that
> We really need to move to a dvcs for development sooner rather than later.
> It's been a year since the decision was made. I understand that it will suck
> for Windows developers in the short term, but with all the discussion about
> the PSF paying for pdo infrastructure work, I think getting us
> Dirkjan's reasoning here is correct. However, we may be at the point
> where we've reached diminishing returns on letting this prevent the
> changeover - perhaps it is time to force the issue by actually switching
> the development process, documenting the use of the hg-eol extension for
> anyone
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> It's perceived as not much of an issue, AFAICT, because people feel
> that using good editors will save you most of the time, pre-push hooks
> will prevent everyone from actually polluting the central repository,
> and it would be easy to install pre-commit hooks locally to
I've also asked Brian Curtain to test the extension and he said he would.
(He's been doing bug triage, and testing and writing a bunch of windows
patches...I think he should be considered for commit access in the not
too distant future.)
--David
___
pyth
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:41:45 +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 15:17, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > We really need to move to a dvcs for development sooner rather than later.
> > It's been a year since the decision was made. Â I understand that it will
> > suck
> > for Windows dev
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 20:36, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Dirkjan would know where the patch is.
It's in hg.python.org/pymigr (and was previously announced in my
status report on python-dev, I think that was on Feb 10).
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
python-committers
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 21:18, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > The hold-up will ultimately be the EOL extension and the updated docs
> > now that Dirkjan has a patch for sys.mercurial.
>
> Is that patch published somewhere? I'd like to take a look.
>
Dirkjan would know where the patch is.
-Brett
__
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 18:01, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> The risk *seems* reasonably low, people on non-Windows platforms are
>> unlikely to touch those files and they are unlikely to be edited by hand,
>> and if the cost of fixing the problem is low it seems reasonable to migrate
>> earlier rather
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 17:52, Michael Foord wrote:
>>> What is the risk of going ahead with a broken system?
>>>
>>> The crux of the matter is that building Python for Windows could break if
>>> someone accidentally
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 17:52, Michael Foord wrote:
>> What is the risk of going ahead with a broken system?
>>
>> The crux of the matter is that building Python for Windows could break if
>> someone accidentally commits the wrong line-endings for a few specific files
>> (V
On 02/03/2010 16:41, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 17:12, Steve Holden wrote:
And does it look like a non-issue because you are familiar with the
Windows environment or because your imagination can't conceive of why it
would be a real problem? Does going ahead make developme
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 17:52, Michael Foord wrote:
> What is the risk of going ahead with a broken system?
>
> The crux of the matter is that building Python for Windows could break if
> someone accidentally commits the wrong line-endings for a few specific files
> (Visual Studio project and confi
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 17:12, Steve Holden wrote:
> And does it look like a non-issue because you are familiar with the
> Windows environment or because your imagination can't conceive of why it
> would be a real problem? Does going ahead make development more
> difficult for the Windows platform?
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:29:13 -0500,
> Steve Holden a écrit :
>> IMHO we got in this mess because we didn't have sufficient involvement
>> from Windows platform users during the DVCS evaluation - people saw
>> that there was some accommodation to Windows, and assumed it woul
Le Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:29:13 -0500,
Steve Holden a écrit :
> IMHO we got in this mess because we didn't have sufficient involvement
> from Windows platform users during the DVCS evaluation - people saw
> that there was some accommodation to Windows, and assumed it would be
> sufficient for our pur
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:41:45 +0100,
> Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
>> For the EOL issue, there is code, it needs testing. Martin Geisler
>> (the primary author so far) and I issued a call for testing on
>> python-dev last week, but without any response so far.
>
> The people w
Le Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:41:45 +0100,
Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
>
> For the EOL issue, there is code, it needs testing. Martin Geisler
> (the primary author so far) and I issued a call for testing on
> python-dev last week, but without any response so far.
The people who have voiced their annoyance
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 15:17, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> We really need to move to a dvcs for development sooner rather than later.
> It's been a year since the decision was made. I understand that it will suck
> for Windows developers in the short term, but with all the discussion about
> the PSF pay
On Mar 02, 2010, at 08:21 AM, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:36:42AM +0100, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> I can't wait for HG. I have read the main cutprit for the delay is the
>> line-ending issue with MS Windows developers. Is there anything else
>> holding us back?.
>
>Note that, if you
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:36:42AM +0100, Jesus Cea wrote:
> I can't wait for HG. I have read the main cutprit for the delay is the
> line-ending issue with MS Windows developers. Is there anything else
> holding us back?.
Note that, if you'd just like to use Mercurial for your own
convenience whi
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>>
>> I'm preparing the argparse module for the 2.7 and 3.2 branches. Could
>> someone remind me again what the commit process is? Commit to 2.7 and
>> merge to 3.2? And do we merge with svnmerge.py or svn merge? There's
>>
> The hold-up will ultimately be the EOL extension and the updated docs
> now that Dirkjan has a patch for sys.mercurial.
Is that patch published somewhere? I'd like to take a look.
Regards,
Martin
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@py
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/2010 11:24 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Maybe we should consider switching to hg now rather than waiting?
I can't wait for HG. I have read the main cutprit for the delay is the
line-ending issue with MS Windows developers. Is there anything else
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 14:24, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 01, 2010, at 02:06 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> >Well, if we are already screwed if we do a blind merge we might as well
> stop
> >wasting our time on doing blocks since that is the only real use case for
> >bothering.
>
> Maybe we should
2010/3/1 Brett Cannon :
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 09:31, Eric Smith wrote:
>> I've been doing it to remind myself of things that need to be merged, or
>> not. And I believe it used to be used by people doing mass-merges, I'm not
>> sure if that is done any more.
>
> Georg and Benjamin used to d
On Mar 01, 2010, at 02:06 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>Well, if we are already screwed if we do a blind merge we might as well stop
>wasting our time on doing blocks since that is the only real use case for
>bothering.
Maybe we should consider switching to hg now rather than waiting? (Well, by
"now"
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 13:10, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > I say we keep doing it in case someone does one last blind merge before
> > we switch to Hg.
>
> That would fail terribly, as there are tons of unblocked changes that
> shouldn't be merged, either.
>
> I don't want to argue about policy a
> I say we keep doing it in case someone does one last blind merge before
> we switch to Hg.
That would fail terribly, as there are tons of unblocked changes that
shouldn't be merged, either.
I don't want to argue about policy at this point, but I don't feel
particularly bad myself when I forget
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 09:31, Eric Smith wrote:
> Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Bethard wrote:
>>>
I'm preparing the argparse module for the 2.7 and 3.2 branches. Could
someone remind me again what the commit process is? Co
Gregory P. Smith wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
Steven Bethard wrote:
I'm preparing the argparse module for the 2.7 and 3.2 branches. Could
someone remind me again what the commit process is? Commit to 2.7 and
merge to 3.2? And do we merge with svnmerge.py or svn merg
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>>
>> I'm preparing the argparse module for the 2.7 and 3.2 branches. Could
>> someone remind me again what the commit process is? Commit to 2.7 and
>> merge to 3.2? And do we merge with svnmerge.py or svn merge? There's
>>
Steven Bethard wrote:
I'm preparing the argparse module for the 2.7 and 3.2 branches. Could
someone remind me again what the commit process is? Commit to 2.7 and
merge to 3.2? And do we merge with svnmerge.py or svn merge? There's
probably a webpage explaining this somewhere, but my Google-fu is
Am 01.03.2010 09:44, schrieb Steven Bethard:
> I'm preparing the argparse module for the 2.7 and 3.2 branches. Could
> someone remind me again what the commit process is? Commit to 2.7 and
> merge to 3.2? And do we merge with svnmerge.py or svn merge? There's
> probably a webpage explaining this so
I'm preparing the argparse module for the 2.7 and 3.2 branches. Could
someone remind me again what the commit process is? Commit to 2.7 and
merge to 3.2? And do we merge with svnmerge.py or svn merge? There's
probably a webpage explaining this somewhere, but my Google-fu is
failing me right now.
T
53 matches
Mail list logo
