Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 3781 warnings.catch_warnings fails gracelessly when recording warnings
I just assigned this one to myself - I'll have a patch up for review
shortly (the patch will revert back to having this be a regression test
suite only feature).
Cheers,
Nick.
___
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
>> beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
>> to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
>> u
Barry> 3777 long(4.2) now returns an int
Looks like Amaury has already taken care of this one.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/opt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Even if I can't contribute very much at the moment, I'm still +1 to
that.
I doubt Python would get nice publicity if we released a 3.0 but had
to
tell everyone, "but don't really use it yet, it may
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I
don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do
care about it having 2.6.
I've talked with my contact at M
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st
goal. We
have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Raymond> With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
> Raymond> to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
> Raymond> won't become useless on Windows builds.
>
> My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Sure, we lose the ability to add last-minute -3 warnings. But I think
> that's a pretty minor issue (and those warnings have a tendency to
> subtly break things occasionally, so we shouldn't do them last-minute
> anyway).
Hey, if we catch all the things that need -3 warni
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
>>> Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I
>>> don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do
>>> care about it having 2.6.
>>
>> I'm not really sure what good that would do us unless we wanted to
>> bring 3.0 back to the
Raymond> With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
Raymond> to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
Raymond> won't become useless on Windows builds.
My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for 2.7 and 3.1.
I'm a bit less sure a
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Guido van Rossum]
>>
>> Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
>> beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
>> to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule
Antoine Pitrou writes:
> It's not only the marketing. Having both releases in lock step means the
> development process is synchronized between trunk and py3k, that there is no
> loss of developer focus, and that merges/backports happen quite naturally.
As usual, in theory precision is infinit
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Heimes cheimes.de> writes:
>>
>> Ok, from the marketing perspective it's a nice catch to release 2.6 and
>> 3.0 on the same day. "Python 2.6.0 and 3.0.0 released" makes a great
>> headline.
>
> It's not only the
Christian Heimes cheimes.de> writes:
>
> Ok, from the marketing perspective it's a nice catch to release 2.6 and
> 3.0 on the same day. "Python 2.6.0 and 3.0.0 released" makes a great
> headline.
It's not only the marketing. Having both releases in lock step means the
development process is sy
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on sche
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1s
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We
>> have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We d
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We
> have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do not have
> a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have high hopes for rectifying
21 matches
Mail list logo
