On 02.04.2019 1:44, Steve Dower wrote:
On 01Apr2019 1535, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 01Apr2019 09:12, Steve Dower wrote:
On 30Mar2019 1130, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I wouldn't expect it to be the case in a CI environment but I believe a umask can be overridden if the filesystem is mounted and
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:49 PM Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 01Apr2019 15:44, Steve Dower wrote:
> >On 01Apr2019 1535, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> >>On 01Apr2019 09:12, Steve Dower wrote:
> >>>On 30Mar2019 1130, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> I wouldn't expect it to be the case in a CI environment
On 01Apr2019 15:44, Steve Dower wrote:
On 01Apr2019 1535, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 01Apr2019 09:12, Steve Dower wrote:
On 30Mar2019 1130, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I wouldn't expect it to be the case in a CI environment but I
believe a umask can be overridden if the filesystem is mounted
On 01Apr2019 1535, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 01Apr2019 09:12, Steve Dower wrote:
On 30Mar2019 1130, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I wouldn't expect it to be the case in a CI environment but I believe
a umask can be overridden if the filesystem is mounted and configured
with acls set? (oh, hah,
On 01Apr2019 09:12, Steve Dower wrote:
On 30Mar2019 1130, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I wouldn't expect it to be the case in a CI environment but I
believe a umask can be overridden if the filesystem is mounted and
configured with acls set? (oh, hah, Ivan just said the same thing)
Yep, it
On 31Mar2019 0538, Christian Heimes wrote:
I don't like the fact that the PEP requires users to learn and use an
additional layer to handle native code. Although we cannot provide a
fully secure hook for native code, we could at least try to provide a
best effort hook and document the
On 30Mar2019 1130, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I wouldn't expect it to be the case in a CI environment but I believe a
umask can be overridden if the filesystem is mounted and configured with
acls set? (oh, hah, Ivan just said the same thing)
Yep, it appears this is the case. The Pipelines team
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:31 PM Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> That's just a documentation fix: "If you're not sure whether to use
> DeprecationWarning or PendingDeprecationWarning, use
> DeprecationWarning".
>
Current proposed patch is:
"""
.. note::
PendingDeprecationWarning was introduced as an
