On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 23:15, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds good, thanks
It's right here: ssh://h...@hg.python.org/repos/distutils2
The checkout URL for non-ssh read-only access is:
On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:07 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
To what extent would it be possible to use (conditionally) use full
ahead-of-time compilation as well as JIT?
It would be possible to do this, but it doesn't have
On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Chris Bergstresser wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Generally, that's not going to be the case. But the broader
point--that you've no longer got an especially good idea of what's
taking time to run in your
On Jan 14, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
From: Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com
I'm generally +1 - but given I know that Django 1.2 is slated to
implement something somewhat similar, I'm interested to hear how this
proposal meshes with their plan(s)..
Django 1.2 will most likely
On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:29 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 06/01/2010 11:19, Chris Withers wrote:
Hi All,
Is there a high volume of incoming bugs to the Python tracker?
If so, I'd like to help with triaging. I think
On Jan 3, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Requires-Dist: pywin32 (1.0); sys.platform == 'win32'
Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+
That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to
parse for package managers.
Don't you want the PEP to complete? Why this
On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
The dependency declarations are *not* Python language syntax, and there
is no need to consider Python language syntax in defining them.
Agreed.
We're also not going to be writing an operating system with them; just simple
version range
On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:17 AM, sstein...@gmail.com
sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
The dependency declarations are *not* Python language syntax, and there
is no need to consider Python language
On Dec 27, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com writes:
This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if 2.5
was just 2.5.0 or included
versions like 2.5.1 or
On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Michael Foord fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk writes:
I also use -v for verbose in a few scripts (including options to
unittest when run with python -m). I've seen -V as a common abbreviation
for --version (I've just used this with Mono for
On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Steven Bethard wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Olemis Lang ole...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Michael Foord
On 14/12/2009 19:04, Ian Bicking wrote:
Another thing I just noticed is that argparse using -v for version
where optparse
On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Steven Bethard wrote:
But yes, it's a poll right now on the argparse website
(http://code.google.com/p/argparse/) and if you feel strongly about
it, please add your vote there (rather than here).
I don't even understand what the poll question is asking.
S
On Dec 14, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Steven Bethard steven.bethard at gmail.com writes:
Please read the PEP if you haven't, particularly the Why isn't the
functionality just being added to optparse? section. I don't believe
it is sensible to re-implement all of optparse. What
On Dec 10, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
On 12/8/09 6:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I believe that the current situation is as close to consensus as we
will get on distutils-sig, and in the interests of avoiding months of
further discussion which won't take things any further, I propose
On Nov 7, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org writes:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM, David Lyon
david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
I think buildbot-style test runs for PyPI packages would raise average
package quality on PyPI.
Please excuse the
On Nov 7, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:30 AM, sstein...@gmail.com sstein...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 7, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org writes:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM, David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net
On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:06 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/11/3 sstein...@gmail.com sstein...@gmail.com:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:26 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
It really sounds like you're saying that switching to 3.x isn't
worth the
cost to you, but you want to force people (including yourself
On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Carl Trachte wrote:
On 11/4/09, sstein...@gmail.com sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the 3.x line should just be put out of our misery, merged back
to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and proceed as Glyph suggested in passing with
increasing levels of deprecation until it just
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, sstein...@gmail.com sstein...@gmail.com
wrote:
BeautifulSoup, which I use every day, is one such product. Since
the crappy
old SMGL parser's gone, BeautifulSoup uses the one that's left in
Python 3
On Nov 3, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 10:48 PM, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
A better language, i.e. Python 3.x, will become better faster
without
dragging the 2.x series out any longer.
If Python 2.7 becomes the last of the 2.x series
On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:55 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk
wrote:
There is also little documentation on how to port a significant C
codebase to py3k.
Now there's a good Summer of Code project: to produce a pre-processor
On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:58 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
P.S. I found it curious that one of the strongest proponents of
killing 2.x also mentioned that he has never written a line of 3.x
code. Since this discussion is a matter of great consequence, I
would hope that advocates will only
On Nov 3, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
I'd just like to mention that the scientific community is highly
dependent on NumPy. As long as NumPy is not ported to Py3k,
migration is out of the question. Porting NumPy is not a trivial
issue. It might take a complete rewrite of the
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, sstein...@gmail.com sstein...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 AM, James Y Knight f...@fuhm.net
wrote:
If that happens, it's not true
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I'm not ready for that yet. I think there's plenty of time before we
have to agree to such a bleak view. In the mean time let's do
something practical like help NumPy port to Py3k.
Or, for example, Django...
See
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 AM, James Y Knight f...@fuhm.net wrote:
If that happens, it's not true that there's *nowhere* to go. A
solution
would be to discard 3.x as a failed experiment, take everything
that is
useful from it and port
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Arc Riley wrote:
The main thing holding back the community are lazy and/or obstinate
package maintainers. If they spent half the time they've put into
complaining about Py3 into actually working to upgrade their code
they'd be done now.
That's an
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Arc Riley arcriley at gmail.com writes:
+1 on ending with 2.6.I'm the maintainer of 3rd party Python 3-only
packages
and have ported a few modules that we needed with some help from
the 2to3
tool. It's really not a big deal - and Py3
On Nov 3, 2009, at 7:42 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net writes:
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
TurboGears - Python 3 currently unsupported, no timescale given
TurboGears is Pylons-based, so I suppose the actual question is when
Pylons gets ported.
And
On Nov 3, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
sstein...@gmail.com schrieb:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Arc Riley wrote:
The main thing holding back the community are lazy and/or obstinate
package maintainers. If they spent half the time they've put into
complaining about Py3
On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:30 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
exarkun at twistedmatrix.com writes:
Starting with a mainstream distro doesn't seem like a bad idea. For
example, there isn't currently a 32bit Ubuntu (any version) slave.
That
would be a nice gap to fill in, right?
I've setup a
Not that anyone has asked yet, but here's my opinion on two issues
that have been raised on the python-dev mailing list lately:
+1 on 2.7 release with as much 3.0 easy-port goo as is practicable
without delaying the product beyond the tentative schedule. Sooner
would, of course, be
On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:26 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
It really sounds like you're saying that switching to 3.x isn't
worth the cost to you, but you want to force people (including
yourself) to do so anyways, because ...?
Because that's the future of Python, where the developers who make
On Nov 2, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 10:48 PM, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
A better language, i.e. Python 3.x, will become better faster
without dragging the 2.x series out any longer.
If Python 2.7 becomes the last of the 2.x series, then I personally
favor
On Oct 28, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Hello,
Since the addition of PEP 370, (per-user site packages), site.py and
distutils/command/install.py are *both* providing the various
installation directories for Python,
depending on the system
On Oct 27, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Terry Reedy wrote more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more:
This topic needs its own flippin' newsgroup.
S
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
This topic needs its own flippin' newsgroup.
You could have said just that, appropriate or not, without dumping
on anyone in particular.
I was not trying to dump on you in particular, I picked a random
message
On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
-Original Message-
From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org
[mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org] On
Behalf
Of Sturla Molden
time.sleep should generate a priority request to
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:45 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
Despite what I said above, however, I would also take a default
position against adding any kind of more advanced scheduling system
here. It would, perhaps, make sense to expose the APIs for
controlling the platform scheduler,
On Oct 25, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
These are actually two issues:
a) where do we get buildbot hardware and operators?
I've been trying to get some feedback about firing up buildbots on
Cloud Servers for a while now and haven't had much luck. I'd love to
find a way of
On Oct 25, 2009, at 9:50 AM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
Actually setting one up in the first place might take a bit longer,
since it involves installing the necessary software and making sure
everything's set up right, but the actual slave configuration itself
is one command:
On Oct 25, 2009, at 10:05 AM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
First, there are now a multitude of cloud hosting providers which
will operate a slave machine for you. BuildBot has even begun to
support this deployment use-case by allowing you to start up and
shut down vms on demand to
On Oct 25, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I've been trying to get some feedback about firing up buildbots on
Cloud
Servers for a while now and haven't had much luck. I'd love to
find a
way of having buildbots come to life, report to the mother ship, do
the
build, then go away
On Oct 25, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I don't need to know that it works on every checkin
For us, that is a fairly important requirement, though.
Reports get more and more useless if they aren't instantaneous.
Sometimes, people check something in just to see how the build
On Oct 25, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Only turning on the slave occasionally makes it useless.
For certain use cases; not mine.
S
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
On Oct 22, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well __doc__ isn't a normal attribute -- it doesn't follow
inheritance rules.
Maybe we could add a ticket to flag this in the docs.
Is __doc__ not normal due to its general underscorishness, or is it
not normal because it isn't?
Any
On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:18, sstein...@gmail.com sstein...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 22, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well __doc__ isn't a normal attribute -- it doesn't follow
inheritance rules.
Maybe we could add
Shouldn't this be on python-ideas?
S
On Oct 20, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
Hi,
as some of you know, recently I've released an arbitrary precision
C library for decimal arithmetic together with a Python module:
http://www.bytereef.org/libmpdec.html
On Oct 20, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
sstein...@gmail.com sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't this be on python-ideas?
I found previous discussions about Decimal in C on python-dev,
that's why
used this list.
python-ideas:
This list is to contain discussion of speculative
On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
various projects under win32.
It's planned to night.
The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
projects
51 matches
Mail list logo
