On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Kálmán
Gergely wrote:
> Hello, my name is Greg.
>
> I've just started using python after many years of C programming, and I'm
> also new to the list. I wanted to clarify this
> first, so that maybe I will get a little less beating for my stupidity :)
>
> I use python
pydoc.py uses os.popen once on line 1359. According to the
documentation that function is deprecated since Python 2.6. Does it
make sense to rewrite that line using the newer subprocess instead?
I am asking because os.popen stopped working for me in Python 3.1 but
I don't know if it is worth inves
Sorry about that, got dev-lists mixed up in my head somewhere...
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 16:52, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> So ca8d05e1f1d1 changed the default for repo.heads() to closed=False,
> so that calls to heads() by default will not return closed heads.
> Unfortunately, this also means that an
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:46:54 +0200, Kálmán Gergely
wrote:
Hello, my name is Greg.
I've just started using python after many years of C programming, and I'm
also new to the list. I wanted to clarify this
first, so that maybe I will get a little less beating for my stupidity :)
Welcome!
Hello, my name is Greg.
I've just started using python after many years of C programming, and
I'm also new to the list. I wanted to clarify this
first, so that maybe I will get a little less beating for my stupidity :)
I use python3 and Linux on arch x86 (production will be on x86_64,
though
So ca8d05e1f1d1 changed the default for repo.heads() to closed=False,
so that calls to heads() by default will not return closed heads.
Unfortunately, this also means that any tags from those heads will not
be considered anymore. That seems inadvertent at best, and may be
should be reverted. Concep
Hello there.
I've been doing some work on xmlrpc for CCP in the last weeks. I'm trying to
communicate the results of this back to the python trunk.
I've had the following issues open for a while now:
http://bugs.python.org/issue6096
http://bugs.python.org/issue6099
I would appreciate some commen
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:01 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>
> I am not quite sure whether you are for new features or not. Your
> first sentence ("vote for ... not adding new features") seems to
> suggest that you would not like to see new features, and your last
> sentence ("absence of native cur
Hi,
2009/6/9 Antoine Pitrou :
> Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>> In absence of a patch, it can't be a release blocker, IMO.
>
> I think we've had lots of issues filed as release blockers while they still
> didn't have a patch.
> As for whether this particular bug deserves to be a blocker,
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>
> > I've reported bug http://bugs.python.org/issue5924 some time ago and I
> > think it's a release blocker -- it seems easy to fix, but I don't have
> > time to actually submit a patch, so, I'd like to draw attention to it,
> > especially as a release candi
10 matches
Mail list logo
