Le vendredi 01 juillet 2011 à 17:54 +0200, r.david.murray a écrit :
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/f8ece8c93918
> changeset: 71119:f8ece8c93918
> branch: 3.2
> parent: 71117:3f30cfe51315
> user:R David Murray
> date:Fri Jul 01 11:51:50 2011 -0400
> summary:
> #118
Le vendredi 01 juillet 2011 à 16:43 +0200, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:38:04 -0500
> Brian Curtin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 09:01, David P. Riedel wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Python 3.2.1 was scheduled to be released on 6/19, I believe but there is
> > > no menti
Mark Hammond gmail.com> writes:
> Sure, that would be awesome! I think that will mean your impl is fairly
> close to the first draft of the PEP I checked into HG, which is nice and
> still quite useful to use :)
My C implementation of the launcher is now available at
https://bitbucket.org/vi
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2011-06-24 - 2011-07-01)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open2850 ( +5)
closed 21399 (+64)
total 24249 (+69)
Open issues wit
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:38:04 -0500
Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 09:01, David P. Riedel wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Python 3.2.1 was scheduled to be released on 6/19, I believe but there is
> > no mention of it anywhere. Has it been delayed?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>
> There are two remai
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 09:01, David P. Riedel wrote:
> Hi
>
> Python 3.2.1 was scheduled to be released on 6/19, I believe but there is
> no mention of it anywhere. Has it been delayed?
>
> Thanks.
There are two remaining blockers for the release:
http://bugs.python.org/issue12346 and http://b
Hi
Python 3.2.1 was scheduled to be released on 6/19, I believe but there
is no mention of it anywhere. Has it been delayed?
Thanks.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Le vendredi 01 juillet 2011 à 14:55 +0200, Ross Lagerwall a écrit :
> On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 11:18 +0200, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > I tried to find which commit removes TemporaryFileTests from the
> > testcase list (to see if there is a good reason to do that, or if it's
> > just a mistake): it's so
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 08:46, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> For Sleep, yes, but the time.sleep() docs [1] are completely silent on
> the behaviour of negative sleep values at the Python level. Question 3
> isn't "Is there something wrong with Sleep()?", it is "Is there
> something wrong with the way time.
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 11:18 +0200, Victor Stinner wrote:
> I tried to find which commit removes TemporaryFileTests from the
> testcase list (to see if there is a good reason to do that, or if it's
> just a mistake): it's somewhere between Python 2.x and Python 3.0, but I
> didn't find the commit.
Le vendredi 01 juillet 2011 à 08:17 -0400, Tim Lesher a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 15:13, Ulrich Eckhardt
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > This is a request for clarification for the thread "how to call a function
> > for
> > evry 10 seconds" from the user mailinglist/newsgroup.
> >
> >
> > The gi
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Tim Lesher wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 15:13, Ulrich Eckhardt
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> This is a request for clarification for the thread "how to call a function
>> for
>> evry 10 seconds" from the user mailinglist/newsgroup.
>>
>>
>> The gist is this:
>> 1. On
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> I tried to find which commit removes TemporaryFileTests from the
> testcase list (to see if there is a good reason to do that, or if it's
> just a mistake): it's somewhere between Python 2.x and Python 3.0, but I
> didn't find the commit.
>
>
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 15:13, Ulrich Eckhardt
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is a request for clarification for the thread "how to call a function for
> evry 10 seconds" from the user mailinglist/newsgroup.
>
>
> The gist is this:
> 1. On Linux/Python 2.6, time.sleep(-1.0) raises an IOError.
> 2. On MS Wi
Le vendredi 01 juillet 2011 à 11:24 +0200, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:25:59 +0200
> victor.stinner wrote:
> > http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/0c49260e85a0
> > changeset: 71103:0c49260e85a0
> > user:Victor Stinner
> > date:Thu Jun 30 23:25:47 2011 +0200
>
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:25:59 +0200
victor.stinner wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/0c49260e85a0
> changeset: 71103:0c49260e85a0
> user:Victor Stinner
> date:Thu Jun 30 23:25:47 2011 +0200
> summary:
> Issue #12451: Add support.create_empty_file()
>
> We don't need to
Mark Hammond gmail.com> writes:
> The intention is that there only be a single launcher, as only one app
> can be associated with .py files. OTOH though, file associations can be
> configured per-user IIRC, and assuming that is the case, we could avoid
> my multiple-ini-file usecase above by
I tried to find which commit removes TemporaryFileTests from the
testcase list (to see if there is a good reason to do that, or if it's
just a mistake): it's somewhere between Python 2.x and Python 3.0, but I
didn't find the commit.
Is there a tool to detect that a testcase is never executed to en
18 matches
Mail list logo
