Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On 09/29/2013 08:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Eric V. Smith > wrote: > > On 9/27/2013 9:14 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > I don't see any issue with redirecting the discussion. > python-tulip@ is > > acting like a SIG

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Larry Hastings wrote: > My guess is, a lot of people would be disappointed if Tulip missed 3.4. I > suspect the community would rather we slip the beta a little if it meant it > the difference between Tulip and no Tulip. +1 ___

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:54:39 -0700 Guido van Rossum > wrote: > > So, with the naming settled (asyncio it is), and lots of other things > still > > to do, I need a BDFL for PEP 3156. Any volunteers? If no-one volunteered > > I'll have to ac

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote: > On 9/27/2013 9:14 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > I don't see any issue with redirecting the discussion. python-tulip@ is > > acting like a SIG for the module, so no real precedent beyond it not > > being hosted as a mail.python.org

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On 9/27/2013 9:14 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > I don't see any issue with redirecting the discussion. python-tulip@ is > acting like a SIG for the module, so no real precedent beyond it not > being hosted as a mail.python.org list. I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'd like

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On 09/27/2013 11:33 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: I've been looking at my progress with Tulip and the 3.4 release schedule (PEP 429) and it looks like I will have to do some kind of sprint to get it into the release in time for beta 1, which is planned for Nov 24. Ideally I'd get it into alpha 4,

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:54:39 -0700 Guido van Rossum wrote: > So, with the naming settled (asyncio it is), and lots of other things still > to do, I need a BDFL for PEP 3156. Any volunteers? If no-one volunteered > I'll have to accept my own PEP at some point, but I don't really *want* to > do that

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

So, with the naming settled (asyncio it is), and lots of other things still to do, I need a BDFL for PEP 3156. Any volunteers? If no-one volunteered I'll have to accept my own PEP at some point, but I don't really *want* to do that. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) __

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On 29 Sep 2013 02:52, "Guido van Rossum" wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> It sounds like a reasonable approach to me. >> >> In terms of naming, would you consider "concurrent.asyncio"? When we created that parent namespace for futures, one of the other sugges

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > > Sounds good. But once it's in stdlib, I think it would be proper to shift > the discussion into the normal pydev channels (python-dev, issue tracker, > etc.). Is this the plan? > Hadn't really thought about that. I think there's a preced

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

> On Sep 28, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > It sounds like a reasonable approach to me. > > In terms of naming, would you consider "concurrent.asyncio"? When we created > that parent namespace for futures, one of the other suggested submodules > discussed was the standard event l

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > It sounds like a reasonable approach to me. > > In terms of naming, would you consider "concurrent.asyncio"? When we > created that parent namespace for futures, one of the other suggested > submodules discussed was the standard event loop A

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I've been looking at my progress with Tulip and the 3.4 release schedule > (PEP 429) and it looks like I will have to do some kind of sprint to get it > into the release in time for beta 1, which is planned for Nov 24. Ideally > I'd get i

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Sep 27, 2013, at 09:14 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >I don't see any issue with redirecting the discussion. python-tulip@ is >acting like a SIG for the module, so no real precedent beyond it not being >hosted as a mail.python.org list. The PEP process even allows for this formally. Please add a D

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:59:05 +1000 Nick Coghlan wrote: > It sounds like a reasonable approach to me. > > In terms of naming, would you consider "concurrent.asyncio"? When we > created that parent namespace for futures, one of the other suggested > submodules discussed was the standard event loop

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

It sounds like a reasonable approach to me. In terms of naming, would you consider "concurrent.asyncio"? When we created that parent namespace for futures, one of the other suggested submodules discussed was the standard event loop API. Cheers, Nick. __

Re: [Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I've been looking at my progress with Tulip and the 3.4 release schedule > (PEP 429) and it looks like I will have to do some kind of sprint to get it > into the release in time for beta 1, which is planned for Nov 24. Ideally > I'd get i

[Python-Dev] Getting Tulip (PEP 3156) into the 3.4 stdlib, marked provisional, named asyncio

I've been looking at my progress with Tulip and the 3.4 release schedule (PEP 429) and it looks like I will have to do some kind of sprint to get it into the release in time for beta 1, which is planned for Nov 24. Ideally I'd get it into alpha 4, which is scheduled for Oct 20 -- that's in about th