On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote:
Because code cleanup patches pave road for more complex pieces of
work. Clean code makes patches easier to review. It saves developer's
time and as a result useful patches are integrated into codebase more
quickly.
W dniu 2011-02-01 01:24, Martin v. Löwis pisze:
As a mailing list, it was unmaintainable, since there was no tracking
of what patches still need consideration. So a web-based bug tracker
got into use (although I forgot the name of the tracker software that
was used before SourceForge).
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 01:35, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
wrote:
I see no reason for b.p.o bureaucracy.
It provides a place for discussion, and makes it easier to coordinate
multiple efforts.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:58 AM, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote:
To me polluting tracker with the
issues that are neither bugs nor feature requests only makes bug
triaging process and search more cumbersome.
2011/2/1 anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com:
we can definitely
find a lot of ways to improve Python development process for general
public
Definitely. And the future migration to Mercurial will certainly help as well.
But this thread started with a patch review, not with a proposal to
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 09:51, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:58 AM, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com
wrote:
To me polluting tracker with the
issues that are neither bugs nor
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
A mailing list works only if you have a small group of core developers
who can independently organize the incoming mails using local tools,
such as the read/unread marking of the email client. For a larger
group this
On 2011-02-01, at 4:51 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
I'll abandon my efforts when you prove me that current documented
process is a top-notch way for all interested parties to do a quality
contributions to make Python better. So that the process is open,
straightforward, transparent and
anatoly techtonik writes:
I'll abandon my efforts when you prove me that current documented
process is a top-notch way for all interested parties to do a quality
contributions to make Python better.
I think the product of the process speaks very well for the process.
The most valuable
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:25:24 +0200, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
It sure is more convenient to do patch review, but
that's why we are working on Rietveld integration in the tracker.
Where is the code?
On 1/31/2011 1:38 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I should mention that I have considered implementing a caching finder
and loader for filesystems in importlib for people to optionally
install to use for themselves. The real trick, though, is should it
only cache hits, misses, or both? Regardless,
On 2011/02/01 07:22:57, techtonik wrote:
It removes the dependency from msi.py making it easier to do the rest
in
subsequent patches.
What rest specifically? Why are the msilib changes needed for that?
http://codereview.appspot.com/4080047/
___
Am 01.02.2011 17:25, schrieb anatoly techtonik:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
A mailing list works only if you have a small group of core developers
who can independently organize the incoming mails using local tools,
such as the read/unread marking of
Am 01.02.2011 16:51, schrieb anatoly techtonik:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:58 AM, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com
wrote:
To me polluting tracker with the
issues that are neither bugs nor feature requests only makes
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Brian Curtin brian.cur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 15:43, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Brian Curtin brian.cur...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 15:13, anatoly techtonik
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Am 31.01.2011 22:13, schrieb anatoly techtonik:
Ok. Here is the patch. I used Orca to reverse installer tables of
Mercurial MSI and inserted similar entry for Python.
This doesn't do uninstallation correctly.
I do not
On 02/01/2011 09:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
So far only Georg explained what patches sent to mailing list will not
be reviewed, because there is too much volume. But bugtracker is not a
patch tracker. It doesn't allow to monitor incoming patches by module,
its search is very poor. Of
On 2011/02/01 19:50:23, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
On 2011/02/01 07:22:57, techtonik wrote:
It removes the dependency from msi.py making it easier to do the
rest in
subsequent patches.
What rest specifically? Why are the msilib changes needed for that?
The rest is to use ctypes, so that no
On 2011/02/02 07:14:17, techtonik wrote:
On 2011/02/01 19:50:23, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
On 2011/02/01 07:22:57, techtonik wrote:
It removes the dependency from msi.py making it easier to do the
rest in
subsequent patches.
What rest specifically? Why are the msilib changes needed for
On 2011/02/02 07:18:33, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ah. That shouldn't be done. If anything is to be done, the builtin
msilib can be
considered, instead. Given the choice of using either ctypes or an
external
package, I prefer the external package.
It is a surprise to find builtin msilib. Why
On 2011/02/02 07:32:02, techtonik wrote:
[...]
Can you PLEASE take this off python-dev and move to an issue at
bugs.python.org? At least remove python-dev from the CC, or we'll
have to temporarily block messages from codereview.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4080047/
21 matches
Mail list logo
