On 4 September 2014 15:45, Shorya Raj rajsho...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, have you considered using Travis? It would allow us to add to the
configurations, at least generally...
Many SaaS solution assume the use of specific centralised identity
providers, which isn't a function we're prepared to
On 4 September 2014 16:59, Shorya Raj rajsho...@gmail.com wrote:
The limiting factor is generally time - various aspects of the current
system are clumsy, but they work, so unless someone is particularly
keen and willing to work through all the factors that led to the
current setup and propose
Yes there are details indeed. But not show stoppers. A prototype can be seen
here: http://cclimited.webfactional.com
The nice bit is testing will be executed in a total fresh instance, an added
bonus
On 4 September 2014 05:16:01 GMT+01:00, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September
On 4 September 2014 18:50, A. Cavallo a.cava...@cavallinux.eu wrote:
Yes there are details indeed. But not show stoppers. A prototype can be
seen here: http://cclimited.webfactional.com
The nice bit is testing will be executed in a total fresh instance, an added
bonus
Oh, very nice!
What is
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:11:38 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That leaves Python 2.7, and I have to say I'm now persuaded that a
backport (including any required httplib and urllib features) is the
right way to go. One of the tasks I'd been dreading as a follow-on
from PEP 466 was
On 4 September 2014 22:39, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:11:38 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That leaves Python 2.7, and I have to say I'm now persuaded that a
backport (including any required httplib and urllib features) is the
right way to
Also, have you considered using Travis? It would allow us to add to the
configurations, at least generally...
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2014 11:07, Antonio Cavallo a.cava...@cavallinux.eu
wrote:
I wonder if there is any interest in
The limiting factor is generally time - various aspects of the current
system are clumsy, but they work, so unless someone is particularly
keen and willing to work through all the factors that led to the
current setup and propose changes (including at least a rough concept
of how ongoing
And so what would need to be done to rectify this problem? If there are no
objections, I would like to resolve this particular point, at least until
better people can be found to do so.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:50 PM, A. Cavallo a.cava...@cavallinux.eu wrote:
Yes there are details indeed. But
Hi,
Thanks for your comments! I've done more tests on a new machine and, for
better or worse, was no longer able to reproduce the issue. Parallel
compilation now works fine; I'll keep collecting output from make, and
would post it here if the problem appears again.
One additional issue appeared,
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:06:25 +0200
Jonas Wagner jonas.wag...@epfl.ch wrote:
One additional issue appeared, though: it seems that extension modules are
always built sequentially no matter what the value of MAKEFLAGS is. I've
seen that these are being built by a custom setup.py script. Do you
Setting up a repo with the code and cleaning a bit here and there.
Over the weekend I can put something useable.
Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 4 September 2014 18:50, A. Cavalloa.cava...@cavallinux.eu wrote:
Yes there are details indeed. But not show stoppers. A prototype can be
seen here:
12 matches
Mail list logo
