l...@rmi.net writes:
FWIW, after rewriting Programming Python for 3.1, 3.x still feels
a lot like a beta to me, almost 2 years after its release.
Email, of course, is a big wart. But guess what? Python 2's email
module doesn't actually work! Sure, the program runs most of the
time, but
Steve Holden Wrote:
We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase
the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think
about a broader campaign to increase the quality of the python 3
libraries. I find it very annoying that the #python IRC group still
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Thorne step...@thorne.id.au wrote:
We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase
the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think
about a broader campaign to increase the quality of the python 3
libraries. I
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:19:37 pm Jesse Noller wrote:
Awesome. I plan on wasting as much money on the useless effort of
moving python 3 forward as humanly possible.
I'm sorry, but if that's sarcasm, it's far too subtle for me :(
--
Steven D'Aprano
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 07:44, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Thorne step...@thorne.id.au
wrote:
We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase
the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think
Replying en masse to save bandwidth here...
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org writes:
We know it, we have extensively discussed how to fix it, we have IMO a good
design, and we even have someone willing and able to tackle the problem. We
need to find a sufficient source of funding to enable him
On 18/06/2010 16:09, l...@rmi.net wrote:
Replying en masse to save bandwidth here...
Barry Warsawba...@python.org writes:
We know it, we have extensively discussed how to fix it, we have IMO a good
design, and we even have someone willing and able to tackle the problem. We
need to find a
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2010-06-11 - 2010-06-18)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
2777 open (+43) / 18070 closed (+12) / 20847 total (+55)
Open issues with patches: 1122
On 18.06.10 17:04, Brian Curtin wrote:
[...]
2. no code coverage (test/user story/rfc/pep)
If you know of a way to incorporate code coverage tools and metrics into
the current process, I believe a number of people would be interested.
There currently exists some coverage tool that
Python 3.0 was *declared* to be an experimental release, and by most
standards 3.1 (in terms of the core language and functionality) was a
solid release.
Any reasonable expectation about Python 3 adoption predicted that it
would take years, and would include going through a phase of
On 18/06/2010 18:22, l...@rmi.net wrote:
Python 3.0 was *declared* to be an experimental release, and by most
standards 3.1 (in terms of the core language and functionality) was a
solid release.
Any reasonable expectation about Python 3 adoption predicted that it
would take years, and would
Giampaolo Rodolà g.rod...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/17 Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com:
There's a related meta-issue having to do with antique protocols.
Can I know what meta-issue are you talking about exactly?
Giampaolo, I believe that you and I have already discussed this on one
of the
2010/6/18 Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com:
Giampaolo Rodolà g.rod...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/17 Bill Janssen jans...@parc.com:
There's a related meta-issue having to do with antique protocols.
Can I know what meta-issue are you talking about exactly?
Giampaolo, I believe that you and I
I wasn't calling Python 3 a turd. I was trying to show
the strangeness of the logic behind your rationalization.
And failing badly... (maybe I should have used tar ball?)
What I'm suggesting is that extreme caution be exercised from
this point forward with all things 3.X-related. Whether you
At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +, l...@rmi.net wrote:
So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things
on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is
prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in
this regard, the implications of
On 6/18/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Dörwald wrote:
http://coverage.livinglogic.de/
I am a bit puzzled as to the meaning of the gray/red/green bars since
the correlation between coverage % and bars is not very high.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +, l...@rmi.net wrote:
So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things
on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is
prime among these: for all
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 13:53, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 6/18/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Dörwald wrote:
http://coverage.livinglogic.de/
I am a bit puzzled as to the meaning of the gray/red/green bars since the
correlation between coverage % and bars is not very high.
Gray is
On 18/06/2010 19:52, l...@rmi.net wrote:
I wasn't calling Python 3 a turd. I was trying to show
the strangeness of the logic behind your rationalization.
And failing badly... (maybe I should have used tar ball?)
I didn't make myself clear. The expected disappointment I was referring
to
On 6/18/2010 10:24 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
http://jessenoller.com/2010/05/20/announcing-python-sprint-sponsorship/
This does not specify what expenses you are thinking of covering. Food
is the most obvious.
Anyway, this got me to think about offering my house at a site for US
east coast
Michael Foord:
Python 3.0 was *declared* to be an experimental release, and by most
standards 3.1 (in terms of the core language and functionality) was a solid
release.
That looks to me like an after-the-event rationalization. The
release note for Python 3.0 (and the What's new) gives no
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 6/18/2010 10:24 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
http://jessenoller.com/2010/05/20/announcing-python-sprint-sponsorship/
This does not specify what expenses you are thinking of covering. Food is
the most obvious.
Anyway, this
On Jun 18, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
I'm still baffled as to how a bug in the cgi module (along with the
acknowledged email problems) is such a big deal. Was it reported and then
languished in the bug tracker? That would be bad ion its own but if it was
only recently
On 18/06/2010 23:51, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Jun 18, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
I'm still baffled as to how a bug in the cgi module (along with the
acknowledged email problems) is such a big deal. Was it reported and then
languished in the bug tracker? That would be bad
On 6/18/2010 6:51 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
There has been a disappointing
lack of bug reports across the board for 3.x.
Here is one from this week involving the interaction of array and
bytearray. It needs a comment from someone who can understand the C-API
based patch, which is beyond
25 matches
Mail list logo
