Re: [Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker

> > I don't mind what approach is taken -- I'm happy to work within the >> current infrastructure if someone can suggest a good way. I really just want >> to be able to start distinguishing between issues that are essentially new >> and under debate versus issues that most people agree are a "Good

[Python-Dev] Review of Issue http://bugs.python.org/issue2706, timedelta operators

Hi all, I'm just trying to find my feet with regards to the proper process for reviewing. I'm not sure what's best: * Post the review as a comment on the associated issue. Only nosies will be updated. * Post the review as a comment on the issue, then post a one-line information update to this

Re: [Python-Dev] reviewing patches

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:55, Terry Reedy wrote: > Martin v. Löwis wrote: > >> I have seen it said that one very useful activity is reviewing patches. >>> Of the issues in the tracker, it is not immediately clear to me what is >>> required of such a review. Many of these patches appear to be bund

Re: [Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 21:00, Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg < >> tleeuwenb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker.

Re: [Python-Dev] More on Py3K urllib -- urlencode()

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009, Dan Mahn wrote: > > Any suggestions would be welcome before I try to submit this as a patch. Just go ahead and submit it now; it's easier to review patches when they're in the system, and it also makes sure that it won't get lost. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*>

Re: [Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker

Terry Reedy wrote: > The other problem with too many specifics is non-use.  As it is, an issue is > sometimes closed with no resolution marked, so one has to scroll down, > possibly a long way, to see whether it was accepted or rejected.  (Is it > possible to require a resolution when closing?) Y

Re: [Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker

Brett Cannon wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg mailto:tleeuwenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it would be useful to have the following status options (new status options marked with a

Re: [Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker

Hi Tennessee, I plan to take a look at all open issues before PyCon, do you want to join forces? :) Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it would > be useful to have the following status options (new status options marked > with a '+'):

Re: [Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg < > tleeuwenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it would >> be useful to have the following status options (new st

Re: [Python-Dev] reviewing patches

Martin v. Löwis wrote: I have seen it said that one very useful activity is reviewing patches. Of the issues in the tracker, it is not immediately clear to me what is required of such a review. Many of these patches appear to be bundled in with feature requests, leaving the question of whether th

Re: [Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote: > Hi all, > > I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it would > be useful to have the following status options (new status options marked > with a '+'): > Open: Means that the issue has been created and not fur

[Python-Dev] Addition of further status options to tracker

Hi all, I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it would be useful to have the following status options (new status options marked with a '+'): Open: Means that the issue has been created and not further reviewed + Request Approved: Means that the issue is marked as w

Re: [Python-Dev] More on Py3K urllib -- urlencode()

Yes, that was a good idea. I found some problems, and attached a new version. It looks more complicated than I wanted, but it is a very regular repetition, so I hope it is generally readable. I used "doctest" to include the test scenarios. I was not familiar with it before, but it seems to

Re: [Python-Dev] draft 3.1 release schedule

I'm making minor updates to the decimal module to match the 1.68 version of the spec. Looks like most was already done. Just needs some doc fixes. Raymond ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/p

Re: [Python-Dev] draft 3.1 release schedule

You might also want to collect a list of serious changes that you want in this release; I'm making minor updates to the decimal module to match the 1.68 version of the spec. Raymond ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.pytho

Re: [Python-Dev] reviewing patches

> I have seen it said that one very useful activity is reviewing patches. > Of the issues in the tracker, it is not immediately clear to me what is > required of such a review. Many of these patches appear to be bundled in > with feature requests, leaving the question of whether the review it > jud

Re: [Python-Dev] draft 3.1 release schedule

2009/3/9 : > >    >>> You might also want to collect a list of serious changes that you >    >>> want in this release; > > http://bugs.python.org/issue4847 > > Not yet fixed.  Needs: > >    * Decision about the correct fix (I think it will involve an API >      change). > >    * Test case and a pa

Re: [Python-Dev] draft 3.1 release schedule

2009/3/9 Raymond Hettinger : >>   >>> You might also want to collect a list of serious changes that you >>   >>> want in this release; > > Bob Ippolito has a good sized patch to update the json module > and improve its performance. > > http://bugs.python.org/issue4136 ...and it's already on the PE

Re: [Python-Dev] draft 3.1 release schedule

>>> You might also want to collect a list of serious changes that you >>> want in this release; Bob Ippolito has a good sized patch to update the json module and improve its performance. http://bugs.python.org/issue4136 Raymond ___ Python-Dev

Re: [Python-Dev] draft 3.1 release schedule

>>> You might also want to collect a list of serious changes that you >>> want in this release; http://bugs.python.org/issue4847 Not yet fixed. Needs: * Decision about the correct fix (I think it will involve an API change). * Test case and a patch. * Probably small

[Python-Dev] reviewing patches

Hi all, I have seen it said that one very useful activity is reviewing patches. Of the issues in the tracker, it is not immediately clear to me what is required of such a review. Many of these patches appear to be bundled in with feature requests, leaving the question of whether the review it judg

Re: [Python-Dev] Regexp 2.7

Facundo Batista gmail.com> writes: > > > Matthew Barnett has been doing a lot of work on the regular expressions engine > > (it seems he hasn't finished yet) under http://bugs.python.org/issue2636. > > However, the patches are really huge and touch all of the sre internals. I > > wonder what the

Re: [Python-Dev] Regexp 2.7

2009/3/7 Antoine Pitrou : > Matthew Barnett has been doing a lot of work on the regular expressions engine > (it seems he hasn't finished yet) under http://bugs.python.org/issue2636. > However, the patches are really huge and touch all of the sre internals. I > wonder what the review process can b

Re: [Python-Dev] draft 3.1 release schedule

2009/3/9 Terry Reedy : > Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> >>> You might also want to collect a list of serious changes that you want >>> in this release; I know I/O in C is on the list (and without it I >>> wouldn't consider it worth releasing) but there may be others. The >>> developers of such feature

Re: [Python-Dev] Integrate BeautifulSoup into stdlib?

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:30:25PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Ubuntu (and probably Debian): apt-get install python-lxml Tested in Debian: yes, the incantation works. Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/p...@phd.pp.ru Programmers don't die, they ju

Re: [Python-Dev] draft 3.1 release schedule

Benjamin Peterson wrote: You might also want to collect a list of serious changes that you want in this release; I know I/O in C is on the list (and without it I wouldn't consider it worth releasing) but there may be others. The developers of such features ought to be on board with delivering t

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 3.0 grammar ambiguous?

>> To be honest I wasn't aware of this ambiguity. It seems that whoever >> wrote the patch for argument unpacking (a, b, *c = ...) got "lucky" >> with an ambiguous grammar. This surprises me, because IIRC usually >> pgen doesn't like ambiguities. Other parser generators usually have >> some way to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 239 - Rational

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Lie Ryan wrote: > PEP 239 says that Rational type was Rejected, but some time ago this > decision is reverted, and now python 3.0 and python 2.6 includes a > fractions.Fraction type. Shouldn't this PEP be updated? (At least to include > a note of its obsoleted stat

Re: [Python-Dev] BZR mirror and pushing to Launchpad

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 11:23, R. David Murray wrote: On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 10:49, Barry Warsaw wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mar 9, 2009, at 10:48 AM, R. David Murray wrote: > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 09:30, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:02 AM, R. David Murray wrote

Re: [Python-Dev] BZR mirror and pushing to Launchpad

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 10:49, Barry Warsaw wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mar 9, 2009, at 10:48 AM, R. David Murray wrote: On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 09:30, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:02 AM, R. David Murray wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 08:15, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > >

Re: [Python-Dev] BZR mirror and pushing to Launchpad

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:02 AM, R. David Murray wrote: On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 08:15, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Mar 9, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Andrew Bennetts wrote: On the other hand, it does appear that is

Re: [Python-Dev] BZR mirror and pushing to Launchpad

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 at 08:15, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Mar 9, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Andrew Bennetts wrote: On the other hand, it does appear that is a branch that is not stacking-capable. I'm not sure how this could happen by following the instruct

Re: [Python-Dev] BZR mirror and pushing to Launchpad

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 9, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Andrew Bennetts wrote: On the other hand, it does appear that is a branch that is not stacking-capable. I'm not sure how this could happen by following the instr

Re: [Python-Dev] RELEASED Python 3.1 alpha 1

Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>> On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I'm >>> happy to announce the first alpha release of Python 3.1. >> Are there any plans for a Windows installer? > > Yes. However, I cannot produce them on weekends. Sounds like a bug in the MS installer

Re: [Python-Dev] RELEASED Python 3.1 alpha 1

>> On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I'm >> happy to announce the first alpha release of Python 3.1. > > Are there any plans for a Windows installer? Yes. However, I cannot produce them on weekends. Regards, Martin ___

Re: [Python-Dev] RELEASED Python 3.1 alpha 1

On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I'm happy to announce the first alpha release of Python 3.1. Are there any plans for a Windows installer? Raymond ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.pytho

Re: [Python-Dev] Integrate BeautifulSoup into stdlib?

> I'd like to suggest that any new candidate for the standard library be > discussed and then set aside for a cooling off period of ONE YEAR. If > then folks can all agree the library is not only Goodness, but of > general interest, especially for bootstrapping small projects, then take > a vote,

Re: [Python-Dev] IDLE maintenance

> As I said, I don't know the plans or people surrounding IDLE are. If it > needs a new maintainer I hereby volunteer. Can you please start by looking into the issues reported for the IDLE component? (there are currently 71 of them) For those with a patch in particular (17 currently), make a rec