Mostly yes, but at least you could tell people to upgrade straight to
2.7.7 and skip 2.7.6.
2013/12/17 Donald Stufft :
> Isn't changing it in 2.7.6 which is already released and then reverting in
> 2.7.7 worse? Either way 2.7.6 will have this change and be in the wild and
> broken for people who
Isn't changing it in 2.7.6 which is already released and then reverting in
2.7.7 worse? Either way 2.7.6 will have this change and be in the wild and
broken for people who depend on it
> On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
> 2013/12/17 Antoine Pitrou :
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 201
I've successfully embedded Python for a single thread
I tried to extend the implementation for multiple threads (a worker
thread scenario) and I'm encountering either deadlocks or seg faults
depending upon how I got about it.
There seems to be some inconsistency between what is covered in the d
I've successfully embedded Python for a single thread
I tried to extend the implementation for multiple threads (a worker
thread scenario) and I'm encountering either deadlocks or seg faults
depending upon how I got about it.
There seems to be some inconsistency between what is covered in the d
2013/12/17 Antoine Pitrou :
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:18:25 -0500
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
>>
>>
>> Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
>> a late-in-the-release-
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:18:25 -0500
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
>
>
> Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
> a late-in-the-release-cycle third dot release? It caused,
On 18 Dec 2013 06:21, "Maciej Fijalkowski" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Maybe someone from PyPy should bring this up as an official topic at the
> > language summit to figure out the blockers (again). Or it can join
regex on
> > the list of "module discussed
[Barry]
> ...
> I don't think the API *has* to change in a backward incompatible way either.
> The methods could be given **kws with a bit of hackery to figure out whether
> the old API was being used (keys: int, default, maxwidth) or the new API was
> being used (keys: _int and _maxwidth). Yeah i
This really seems a case of ZODB depending on internals where it
really, really should have known better. Calling this "a de-facto
public interface" seems way too far a stretch of the intention. And
please don't fix it by version-testing and using a different argument
name...
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Dec 17, 2013, at 01:18 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
>
>Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
>a late-in-the-release-cycle third dot release? It caused, ZODB's tests
>to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 01:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This really seems a case of ZODB depending on internals where it
> really, really should have known better. Calling this "a de-facto
> public interface" seems way too far a stretch of the intention. A
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Maybe someone from PyPy should bring this up as an official topic at the
> language summit to figure out the blockers (again). Or it can join regex on
> the list of "module discussed for addition at the language summit but never
> quite pushed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b1e94e332ec8
Do we really want to change an undocumented-but-effectively-public API in
a late-in-the-release-cycle third dot release? It caused, ZODB's tests
to fail, for instance.
While the docstring said, "Don't u
Maybe someone from PyPy should bring this up as an official topic at the
language summit to figure out the blockers (again). Or it can join regex on
the list of "module discussed for addition at the language summit but never
quite pushed to commitment". =)
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Stefan
Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> I would like to discuss on the language summit a potential inclusion
> of cffi[1] into stdlib. This is a project Armin Rigo has been working
> for a while, with some input from other developers.
I've tried cffi (admittedly only in a toy script) and find it very nice
to
15 matches
Mail list logo