io
I’m in favor of releasing more often as well.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail
> On May 12, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2015 at 21:21, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>
>>> On May 12, 2015, at 7:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12 May 2015 at 21:09, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>>> If you control the
> On May 12, 2015, at 7:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2015 at 21:09, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> If you control the app you don't need to do that. All relevant api accept
>> the context parameter. The shims are only useful when you don't control the
&
gt;> On 12.05.2015 12:04, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>
>>> On May 12, 2015, at 3:57 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>>
>>> In a user based installation (which most applications shipping
>>> their own Python installation are), you can always do this
>>>
cations do that.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
> On May 11, 2015, at 6:47 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 11 May 2015 at 20:23, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> On May 11, 2015, at 6:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> We made the decision when PEP 476 was accepted that this change turned
>>> a silent security failure in
said, since it's not being included in Python core and it's only
some patch that some downstream's are going to apply I also don't really care
that much because it's not going to effect me and if it turns out to be a bad
idea and a footgun like I think it is, then the blame can
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:55 AM Donald Stufft <mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
> Just thought I'd share this since it shows how what people are using to
> download things from PyPI
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> Donald Stufft wrote:
>> Is this version statically linked by any chance?
>
> No, there's no change to the compilation process, so you can get exactly the
> same result by using the regular installer and copyi
g *really* useful.
> Paul
Is this version statically linked by any chance?
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Python-Dev mailing li
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:54:55PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>
>> Anyways, I'll have access to the data set for another day or two before I
>> shut down the (expensive) server that I have to use
ive) server that I have to use to crunch the numbers so if
there's anything anyone else wants to see before I shut it down, speak up soon.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
ww.egenix.com/
>>>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/
>>>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...http://python.egenix.com/
>> ___
> On Mar 21, 2015, at 5:17 PM, MRAB wrote:
>
> On 2015-03-21 21:00, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 2015, at 4:53 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 08:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
>>>> FWIW, I t
rs,
> -Barry
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B
> On Mar 21, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 19 March 2015 at 07:51, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> I’ve long wished that the OS had it’s own virtual environment. A lot of
>> problems
>> seems to come from trying to cram the things the OS wants with the things
_
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io
I’ve long wished that the OS had it’s own virtual environment. A lot of problems
se
> On Mar 9, 2015, at 7:11 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Mar 2015 02:37, "Donald Stufft" <mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm okay with this. Installing for all users is really something that
> > >
whatever it’s called)
entrypoints and then give Python something like -m, but which executes a
specific entry point name instead of a module name (or maybe -m can fall back
to looking at entry points? I don’t know).
I’ve given this like… 30s worth of thought, but maybe:
pip i
> On Feb 10, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> Donald Stufft wrote:
>> However [*item for item in ranges] is mapped more to something like this:
>> result = []
>> for item in iterable:
>>result.extend(*item)
>
> Actually it would be
>
> On Feb 9, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Neil Girdhar wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Donald Stufft <mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:29 PM, Neil Girdhar > <mailto:mistersh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
bate and it was decided that duplicate keyword arguments
> would remain an error (for now at least). If you want to merge the
> dictionaries with overriding, then you can still do:
>
> function(**{**kw_arguments, **more_arguments})
>
> because **-unpacking in dicts overrides as y
7;: 1}, y=2, **{'z': 3})
I feel like not only does this genericize way better but it limits the impact
and new syntax being added to Python and is a ton more readable.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
__
481
> <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0481/> from Donald Stufft that proposes
> using GitHub.
>
> At this point I expect final PEPs by PyCon US so I can try and make a
> decision by May 1. Longer still is to hopefully have whatever solution we
> choose in pla
> On Jan 24, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> Or you have things like pdb++ which needs to replace the pdb import
> because a lot of tools only have a flag like —pdb and do not provide
> a way to switch it to a different import. The sys.path ordering means
> th
> On Jan 24, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 15 January 2015 at 07:35, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> But as Guido pointed out, we _like_ it being difficult to do because we
>> don't
RSA)
$ ssh-keygen -lf /etc/ssh/ssh_host_ed25519_key.pub
256 1d:02:d1:d2:7b:a1:cb:e0:51:65:25:d7:19:dd:4e:74
/etc/ssh/ssh_host_ed25519_key.pub (ED25519)
Sorry for any inconvience this causes!
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_
the default order of sys.path.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/option
nt and helpful. :)
Ah oops, I forgot to review that. *goes to do so now*.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubsc
wrappers use whatever version they were installs against? Or do
you mean the “installed” version might be 3.5 for ``pip.exe`` even though
there’s a 3.5.1 for ``pip.exe`` on the PATH?
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_
d ask.
Depending on the answer above, does it make sense to sign the generic .exe
(does that even work if we rename it?) which will get used for anything that
uses entry points on Windows?
Is there any plan to backport this to 2.7 (presumably after some experience is
had with it in 3.5)?
---
gt;
> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959 voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
> Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
>
> chris.bar..
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>> For what it’s worth, I almost exclusively write 2/3 compatible code (and
>> that’s with the “easy” subset of 2.6+ and either 3.2+ or 3.3+) and doing so
>&
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:40 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> So that's basically it, lowest common demoniator programming where it's hard
>> to
>> look at the future and see anything but the same (or
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:24:15AM -0800, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>> So, I'm more than aware of how to write Python 2/3 co
#x27;s hard to
look at the future and see anything but the same (or similar) language subset
that I'm currently using. This is especially frustrating when you see other
languages doing cool and interesting new things and it feels like we're stuck
with what we had in 2008 or 2010.
-
so I can read them before
> PyCon and have informed discussions while I'm there. I will then plan to make
> a final decision by May 1 so that we can try to have the changes ready for
> Python 3.6 development (currently scheduled for Sep 2015).
Is it OK to adapt my current PEP or shoul
moin/2.x-vs-3.x-survey>
Just going to say http://d.stufft.io/image/0z1841112o0C
<http://d.stufft.io/image/0z1841112o0C> is a hard question to answer, since
most code I write is both.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_
> On Dec 6, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 7 December 2014 at 01:07, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> A likely solution is to use a pre-merge test runner for the systems that we
>> can isolate which will give a decent indication if the tests are going to
>
these on a cloud
provider assuming that their licenses allow that.
The other solution would work easier with our current buildbot fleet since
you’d just tell it to run some tests but you’d wait until a “trusted” person
gave the OK before you did that.
A likely solution is to use a pre-merge t
> On Dec 6, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri Dec 05 2014 at 3:24:38 PM Donald Stufft <mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Brett Cannon > <mailto:bcan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>
>
t;
> In other words, it seems like the key to improving the productivity of
> our CPython patch workflow is to improve the productivity of the patch
> workflow for our key workflow resource, bugs.python.org.
>
> --David
> ___
> Pytho
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io
Do we need to update it? Can it
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
This looks like a pretty good write up, seems to pretty fairly evaluate the
various sides and the various concerns.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 337
include code reviews in the matrix of what tools
we’re going to use then yea?
Like Github/Bitbucket/etc have review built in. Other tools like Phabricator do
as well but are self hosted instead.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
__
points and not deal-breakers.
This sounds like a pretty reasonable attitude to take towards this.
If we’re going to be experimenting/talking things over, should I withdraw my
PEP?
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
__
.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io
Git uses the idea of small individual commands that do small things,
so you can write your own commands that work on text streams to
extend git and you can even write those in Python.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BC
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 10:08 PM, Pierre-Yves David
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/29/2014 06:01 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> The reason the PEP primarily focuses on the popularity of the the tool is
>> because as you mentioned, issues like poor documentation, bad suppor
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:41 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> The technical benefits mostly come from Github generally being a higher
>> quality product than it’s competitors, both FOSS and not.
>
> Here's a solut
nstead of a .patch
from from Roundup. This could allow non-committers to use git if they want,
including PRs but without moving things around.
The obvious cost is that since the committer side of things is still using the
existing tooling there’s no “Merge button” or the other committer benefi
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Pierre-Yves David
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/30/2014 08:45 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> I don’t make branches in Mercurial because
>> i’m afraid I’m going to push a permanent branch to hg.python.org
>> <http://hg.python.org>
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Donald Stufft writes:
>
>> It’s not lost, [… a long, presumably-accurate discourse of the many
>> conditions that must be met before …] you can restore it.
>
> This isn't the place to discuss the details
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Donald Stufft writes:
>
>> I have never heard of git losing history.
>
> In my experience talking with Git users about this problem, that depends
> on a very narrow definition of “losing history”.
>
&g
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 3:26 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun Nov 30 2014 at 2:33:35 PM Donald Stufft <mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 30, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Brett Cannon > <mailto:br...@python.org>> wrote:
>>
>> All
hes of incoming PEPs
he’s seen that a lot of the PEPs are being written on Github using git. I think
it’s fair to say that those people would prefer PRs on Github over using
Bitbucket
as well since they were choosing Github over Bitbucket when there was no
incentive
to do so.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP:
r just because the other
group
hasn’t had a public and inflammatory event.
>
> Not everyone is suited to demonstrate in the streets, but it shouldn't be
> that hard to not use a company with
> acknowledged bad practices.
>
> --
> ~Ethan~
>
> ___
t line is already crossed with other code things already being on
github) that’s fine with me. Or I can expand the scope if people think that
makes more sense in the PEP too.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
___
P
should not be wasting our precious time on building and
> maintaining our own tools or administering the servers on which they run. And
> historically we've not done a great job on maintenance and administration.
>
> Of course it's fun to make tools in Python, and to see th
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> Comments like this make me feel like I didn’t explain myself very well in the
> PEP.
It’s been pointed out to me that Mercurial bookmarks have been core since 1.8
and since I felt like the technical arguments were really
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2014, at 09:54 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>>
>>> - Migrating "data" from GitHub is easy. There are free-as-in-f
ject.
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5
ut there, or that if they are already contributing to
those other Python projects they are probably aware of this particular
toolchain and workflow and can apply that knowledge directly to the Python
project.
Moving to some of these tools happens to come with it features like really nice
CI integr
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat Nov 29 2014 at 7:16:34 PM Alex Gaynor <mailto:alex.gay...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Donald Stufft stufft.io <http://stufft.io/>> writes:
>
> >
> > [words words words]
> >
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Donald Stufft writes:
>
>> I think there is a big difference here between using a closed source
>> VCS or compiler and using a closed source code host. Namely in that
>> the protocol is defined by git so swit
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 2:08 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> On 11/29/2014 04:37 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Alex Gaynor
>> <mailto:alex.gay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Despite being a regular hg
>>> user for years, I ha
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On 29 November 2014 at 23:27, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> In previous years there was concern about how well supported git was on
>> Windows
>> in comparison to Mercurial. However git has grown to support Windows as a
> On Nov 30, 2014, at 12:06 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Nick Coghlan writes:
>
>> 1. I strongly believe that the long term sustainability of the overall
>> open source community requires the availability and use of open source
>> infrastructure.
>
> I concur. This article http://mako.cc/writing
> On Nov 29, 2014, at 9:01 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>>
>> The PEP should also cover providing clear instructions for setting up
>> git-remote-hg with the remaining Mercurial repos (most notably CPython), as
>> well as documenting a supported workflow for g
> On Nov 29, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Nov 2014 09:28, "Donald Stufft" <mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
> >
> > As promised in the "Move selected documentation repos to PSF BitBucket
> > account?" thread
makes it much more attractive to learn the tooling since the hypothetical
person would be able to take that knowledge and apply it elsewhere.
It is my experience, and this entirely ancedotal, that it's far easier to get
reviews from non-committers and committers alike on projects which are ho
> On Nov 29, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
> Donald Stufft stufft.io> writes:
>
>>
>> [words words words]
>>
>
> I strongly support this PEP. I'd like to share two pieces of information. Both
> of these are personal anecdote
> On Nov 29, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> [lots of words]
Just FYI, I’ve pushed an update to the PEP. Nothing major just some grammatical
fixes and such. The revision is here:
https://hg.python.org/peps/rev/6c6947dbd13f
For whatever it's worth, the person who
://www.openhub.net/repositories/compare>`
.. [#hg-git] `hg-git <https://hg-git.github.io/>`
.. [#travisci] `Travis CI <https://travis-ci.org/>`
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
___
Python-Dev mai
> On Nov 24, 2014, at 9:37 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> On 11/24/2014 06:27 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>>
>>> It is sounding to me like GitHub is not, itself, an open solution, even
>>> though
>>
> On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> On 11/24/2014 08:36 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>>
>>> This might be a little controversial, but the PSF's mission should not
>>> influenc
> On Nov 24, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Nov 2014 06:25, "Donald Stufft" <mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Nick Coghlan >> <mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
&g
ATM, so I'm
> > willing to entertain moving to GitHub or Bitbucket or whatever to improve
> > our situation.
>
> It may not have been Guido's intention, but his proposal to undercut the
> entire Python based version control tooling ecosystem by deeming it entirely
> On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Are you volunteering to write a competing PEP for a migration to git and
> GitHub?
If nobody steps up to do this (and another PEP isn’t accepted before then) I can
likely write something up over the upcoming holiday.
---
D
but being a PSF sponsor
> should not play into it in the slightest, else it's like buying influence.
Agreed here too (even then, Github has been a PyCon sponsor for awhile and has
even ran their own Python conference in the past). I think it’s kind of shitty
to reject and demean someo
mmunity is primarily
there as well.
>
>> At least for me, until we get a clear understanding of what workflow changes
>> we are asking for both contributors and core developers and exactly what
>> work would be necessary to update our infrastructure for either Bitbucket
> On Nov 24, 2014, at 4:12 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Nov 2014 10:41, "Donald Stufft" <mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 23, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano > > <mailto:st...@pearwood.info>>
> On Nov 24, 2014, at 7:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 24 November 2014 at 22:01, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> No, I'm not offering to write such a PEP either. I'm requesting that we
>>> recogni
downsides
> too, and needs to promote its specific benefits separately from the
> benefits of Git.
>
In many cases Github is git’s killer feature which is why you see a lot
of people equate the two. It’s not unusual to see a project switch away
but probably still better than what we have now) OSS software that gives
you a github like flow. The only *data* that is really in there is what’s
stored in the repository itself (since I don’t think for anything major
we’d ever put issues there or use the wiki) which is trivial to move around.
---
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
> On 11/23/2014 09:38 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>>
>>> The next point is that there is no easy way to change the target branch of
>>&g
t
degrades into the same terrible UX that *every* patch has to go through on
a hg.python.org repository right now.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.pyt
k
> would be necessary to update our infrastructure for either Bitbucket or
> GitHub we can't really have a reasonable discussion that isn't going to be
> full of guessing.
>
> And I'm still in support no matter what of breaking out the HOW
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 23 November 2014 at 17:14, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 2:01 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> Travis isn't the only CI system on the internet, and for pure Sphinx
>>> documentation
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 2:01 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 23 November 2014 at 16:27, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> By contrast, proposals to switch from Mercurial to Git impose a
>>> *massive* burden on cont
rs to external contribution, both without alienating existing
> contributors by forcing them to change their workflows.
>
> Proposing to *also* switch from Mercurial to git significantly
> increases the cost of the change, while providing minimal incremental
> benefit.
>
> Regards
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 23 November 2014 at 16:03, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that if folks prefer Git, BitBucket supports both. I would object
>>&
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 1:03 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> On 23 November 2014 at 15:19, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> This thread seems to beg for a decision. I think Donald Stufft has it
>
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 23 November 2014 at 15:19, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> This thread seems to beg for a decision. I think Donald Stufft has it
>> exactly right: we should move to GitHub, because it is the easiest to use
>> an
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 12:19 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> This thread seems to beg for a decision. I think Donald Stufft has it exactly
> right: we should move to GitHub, because it is the easiest to use and most
> contributors already know it (or are eager to learn thee)
> On Nov 22, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Nov 2014 07:37, "Donald Stufft" <mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Ned Deily > > <mailto:n...@acm.org>> wrote:
> > > Sure, I
> On Nov 21, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>
> In article <19336614-0e4f-42bf-a918-1807bb7f3...@stufft.io>,
> Donald Stufft wrote:
> [...]
>> Well you can’t document your way out of a bad UX. The thing you’re
>> competing with (on Github at least) is:
&
and it is pretty awesome.
There are self hosted options that offer similar things (often times not quite
as
good in the ease of use though they might be more featureful in other areas).
Mostly what I’m trying to say is that documenting a field that essentially
requires
the end user to not only fig
StopIteration does escape that shouldn't have?
>
I don’t have an opinion on whether it’s enough of a big deal to actually change
it, but I do find wrapping it with a try: except block and returning easier
to understand. If you showed me the current code unless I really thought about
it I wo
vorite host site of Github :/. Something like Github Enterprise
or Atlassian stash which are able to be migrated away from are better in this
regards.
Ironically we do use a propetiary/closed-source/hosted solution for
https://status.python.org/ but it’s not terribly difficult to migr
list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io
The internet suggests trying hg verify, does that do anything?
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C
101 - 200 of 497 matches
Mail list logo
