In article 20121016043352.ga21...@snakebite.org,
Trent Nelson tr...@snakebite.org wrote:
Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The
current version is based off 2.68, which was release on the 22nd
of September 2010. 2.69 was released on the 24th of April,
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:18:04 -0700, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
In article 20121016043352.ga21...@snakebite.org,
Trent Nelson tr...@snakebite.org wrote:
Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The
current version is based off 2.68, which was release on the
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:12:35AM -0700, R. David Murray wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:18:04 -0700, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
In article 20121016043352.ga21...@snakebite.org,
Trent Nelson tr...@snakebite.org wrote:
Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The
In article 20121016071236.0792d250...@webabinitio.net,
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo
as the generated file changes when different committers use
On 14.10.12 21:38, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
In case nobody picks it up, my 5-for-1 offer still stands: if you review
five issues, I'll review one of yours.
What 50 issues you want I'll review.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo
as the generated file changes when different committers use different
versions. In the past we have had issues with a new autoconf version
actually breaking
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:04:46AM -0700, Ned Deily wrote:
In article 20121016071236.0792d250...@webabinitio.net,
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:43:37AM -0700, Charles-François Natali wrote:
My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo
as the generated file changes when different committers use different
versions. In
Charles-François Natali neolo...@free.fr wrote:
Well, so I guess all committers will have to use the same
Linux/FreeBSD/whatever distribution then?
AFAICT there's no requirement regarding the mercurial version used by
committers either.
It should be sufficient to install autoconf-x.y into
It should be sufficient to install autoconf-x.y into /home/user/bin or
something similar. Installing autoconf from source really takes about
3 minutes.
Well, maybe, maybe not.
autoconf depends on a least m4 and Perl, and you may very well have a
compatibility issue here.
That's why most
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:12:35AM -0700, R. David Murray wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:18:04 -0700, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
In article 20121016043352.ga21...@snakebite.org,
Trent Nelson tr...@snakebite.org wrote:
Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:05:23 -0400
Trent Nelson tr...@snakebite.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:43:37AM -0700, Charles-François Natali wrote:
My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo
as the
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:17:35AM -0700, Charles-François Natali wrote:
It should be sufficient to install autoconf-x.y into /home/user/bin or
something similar. Installing autoconf from source really takes about
3 minutes.
Well, maybe, maybe not.
autoconf depends on a least m4 and
Trent Nelson wrote:
build breaking is another matter, of course. If we are
going to mandate a specific version again, that should be documented and
checked for.
My preference: bump to 2.69 and set AC_PREREQ(2.69). If 2.69 proves
unworkable, revert back to 2.68 and
Am 16.10.2012 um 12:15 schrieb andrew.svetlov python-check...@python.org:
+ For easy to use interface to system randomness please see
+ :class:`random.SystemRandom`.
Is it just my non-native speaker ears, or should there be an “an” before “easy”?
I dont feel anything wrong with it, but I'm also not native speaker.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Hynek Schlawack h...@ox.cx wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 um 12:15 schrieb andrew.svetlov python-check...@python.org:
+ For easy to use interface to system randomness please see
+
On 10/16/2012 11:23 AM, Hynek Schlawack wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 um 12:15 schrieb andrew.svetlov python-check...@python.org:
+ For easy to use interface to system randomness please see
+ :class:`random.SystemRandom`.
Is it just my non-native speaker ears, or should there be an “an” before
Am 16.10.2012 12:43, schrieb Larry Hastings:
On 10/16/2012 11:23 AM, Hynek Schlawack wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 um 12:15 schrieb andrew.svetlov python-check...@python.org:
+ For easy to use interface to system randomness please see
+ :class:`random.SystemRandom`.
Is it just my non-native
Well. I rephrased text following suggestion from Larry Hastings.
If there are need more clarification please reopen #15936
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Christian Heimes christ...@python.org wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 12:43, schrieb Larry Hastings:
On 10/16/2012 11:23 AM, Hynek Schlawack wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:52:25 +0200
Christian Heimes christ...@python.org wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 12:43, schrieb Larry Hastings:
On 10/16/2012 11:23 AM, Hynek Schlawack wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 um 12:15 schrieb andrew.svetlov python-check...@python.org:
+ For easy to use interface to system
Antoine Pitrou writes:
But, yes, I would call it higher level rather than easy to use
(I don't think there's a need for hyphens, by the way).
You don't need them to get the point across, but elderly grammar
pedants will think better of you if you use the hyphens.
Personally, I hope they'll
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:51:21 +0200 (CEST)
nick.coghlan python-check...@python.org wrote:
+ # We can use a with statement to ensure threads are cleaned up promptly
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=5) as executor:
- future_to_url =
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Adding an url attribute here looks a bit ugly to me. Why not use a
dict comprehension for future_to_url?
No reason other than the fact it didn't occur to me to do so. Fixed :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan |
Hello, I have some issues pending 'patch review' hanging for more than
two weeks, could somebody please check them out?
In case nobody picks it up, my 5-for-1 offer still stands: if you review
five issues, I'll review one of yours.
Is that a general offer or just for the OP? :-)
Seriously,
On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons
we shouldn't bump to 2.69? Any known incompatibilities?
There will be problems building with 2.69 on Ubuntus older than 12.10,
and Debians older than wheezy.
% rmadison
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:27:24AM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:05:23 -0400
Trent Nelson tr...@snakebite.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:43:37AM -0700, Charles-François Natali wrote:
My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
The reason
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:51 AM, nick.coghlan
python-check...@python.org wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a3f27289ec68
changeset: 79746:a3f27289ec68
branch: 3.3
+ except Exception as exc:
+ print('%r generated an exception: %s' % (url, exc))
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons
we shouldn't bump to 2.69? Any known incompatibilities?
There will be problems
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons
we
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:23:00AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 10:59 +0200, Stefan Krah wrote:
Charles-François Natali neolo...@free.fr wrote:
Well, so I guess all committers will have to use the same
Linux/FreeBSD/whatever distribution then?
AFAICT there's no requirement regarding the mercurial version used by
committers
On 2012-10-16 12:59, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Antoine Pitrou writes:
But, yes, I would call it higher level rather than easy to use
(I don't think there's a need for hyphens, by the way).
You don't need them to get the point across, but elderly grammar
pedants will think better of you
Trent Nelson wrote:
[SNIP]
diff -r 51ce9830d85a configure.ac
--- a/configure.ac Sat Oct 13 11:58:23 2012 -0400
+++ b/configure.ac Tue Oct 16 09:12:56 2012 +
@@ -9,6 +9,9 @@
AC_INIT(python, PYTHON_VERSION, http://bugs.python.org/)
+BUILDDIR=`pwd`
^
33 matches
Mail list logo
