2010/2/23 Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 01:06, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I thought we decided not to have a 2to3 repository at all, but let this
live in the Python trunk exclusively.
That would be fine with me, I just remembered that Benjamin
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2010/2/13 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
I still think that the best approach for projects to use 2to3 is to run
2to3 at install time from a single-source release. For that, projects
will have to adjust to
The other thing is that we will loose some vcs history and some
history granularity by switching development to the trunk version,
since just the svnmerged revisions will be converted.
So the consensus is that 2to3 should be pulled out of the main Python
tree?
Not sure what you mean by
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
The other thing is that we will loose some vcs history and some
history granularity by switching development to the trunk version,
since just the svnmerged revisions will be converted.
So the consensus is that 2to3
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 16:09, Collin Winter coll...@gmail.com wrote:
So the consensus is that 2to3 should be pulled out of the main Python
tree? Should the 2to3 hg repository be deleted, then?
Wouldn't the former be reason to officialize the hg repository,
instead of deleting it?
Cheers,
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 16:09, Collin Winter coll...@gmail.com wrote:
So the consensus is that 2to3 should be pulled out of the main Python
tree? Should the 2to3 hg repository be deleted, then?
Wouldn't the former be reason to officialize the hg repository,
instead of
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 16:09, Collin Winter coll...@gmail.com wrote:
So the consensus is that 2to3 should be pulled out of the main Python
tree? Should the 2to3 hg repository be deleted, then?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 17:05, Collin Winter coll...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I meant pull from. I want an updated snapshot of 2to3 for the
benchmark suite, and I'm looking for the best place to grab it from.
Well, the server that has all the stuff for doing the conversions has
annoyingly been
Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl writes:
Hi everybody!
I hope you have fun at PyCon :-)
As for the current state of The Dreaded EOL Issue, there is an
extension which seems to be provide all the needed features, but it
appears there are some nasty corner cases still to be fixed. Martin
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 18:38, Martin Geisler m...@lazybytes.net wrote:
My dissertation is due this Friday(!), so I will not have much time to
look at EOL issues this week (as usual). But please give it a spin
anyway and let us hear what you think!
I've got about 48 more hours of PyCon sprints
Should the 2to3 hg repository be deleted, then?
Which one? To my knowledge, there is no official 2to3 repository yet.
When the switchover happens, 2to3 should not be converted to its own hg
repository, yes.
This one: http://hg.python.org/2to3
Ah, this shouldn't be used at all for anything
Sorry, I meant pull from. I want an updated snapshot of 2to3 for the
benchmark suite, and I'm looking for the best place to grab it from.
The 2to3 code currently still lives in the subversion sandbox.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 00:55, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Ah, this shouldn't be used at all for anything (except for studying how
Mercurial works). Along with the cpython repository, it is Dirkjan's
test conversion. Even if it survived the ultimate migration (which it
probably
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 00:55, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Ah, this shouldn't be used at all for anything (except for studying how
Mercurial works). Along with the cpython repository, it is Dirkjan's
test conversion. Even if it survived the ultimate migration (which it
probably
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 01:06, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I thought we decided not to have a 2to3 repository at all, but let this
live in the Python trunk exclusively.
That would be fine with me, I just remembered that Benjamin would like
to start using hg sooner and having it as
On Feb 13, 2010, at 1:31 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
IMO, it is realistic to predict that this will not actually happen. If
we can agree to give up the 2to3 sandbox, we should incorporate
find_pattern into the tree, and
2010/2/13 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
I personally like 2to3 in a separate repo because it fits well with my
view that 2to3 is an extra application that happens to also be
distributed with python.
But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
started, but who,
But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
started, but who, other than the committers, actually accesses the 2to3
repo?
It's used in 3to2 for example.
That doesn't really seem to be the case. AFAICT, 3to2 is a hg
repository, with no inherent connection to the 2to3
2010/2/13 Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 17:14, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Does hg support an equivalent of 'bzr split'?
% bzr split --help
Purpose: Split a subdirectory of a tree into a separate tree.
Usage: bzr split TREE
Options:
--usage
2010/2/13 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
started, but who, other than the committers, actually accesses the 2to3
repo?
It's used in 3to2 for example.
That doesn't really seem to be the case. AFAICT, 3to2 is a hg
The other thing is that we will loose some vcs history and some
history granularity by switching development to the trunk version,
since just the svnmerged revisions will be converted.
I suppose it might be possible to fake the history of Lib/lib2to3 with
commits that didn't actually happen,
On Feb 13, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/2/13 Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 17:14, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Does hg support an equivalent of 'bzr split'?
% bzr split --help
Purpose: Split a subdirectory of a tree into a separate
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.dewrote:
But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
started, but who, other than the committers, actually accesses the 2to3
repo?
It's used in 3to2 for example.
That doesn't really seem to be the
Why even keep 2to3 in the sandbox? It should be mature enough now to be
maintained directly in the tree.
I think the original plan was to make standalone releases, so that
people could upgrade their installation from a newer release of 2to3.
IMO, it is realistic to predict that this will not
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Why even keep 2to3 in the sandbox? It should be mature enough now to be
maintained directly in the tree.
I think the original plan was to make standalone releases, so that
people could upgrade their installation from a
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I vote on giving up the 2to3 sandbox.
One other point - is there a Python 2.6 backwards compatibility
restriction on 2to3 at the moment? If there isn't, should there be?
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan
2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
IMO, it is realistic to predict that this will not actually happen. If
we can agree to give up the 2to3 sandbox, we should incorporate
find_pattern into the
2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I vote on giving up the 2to3 sandbox.
One other point - is there a Python 2.6 backwards compatibility
restriction on 2to3 at the moment? If there isn't,
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I vote on giving up the 2to3 sandbox.
One other point - is there a Python 2.6 backwards compatibility
restriction on 2to3 at the
2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:17, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de
wrote:
I vote on giving up the 2to3 sandbox.
One other point - is there a Python 2.6
I personally like 2to3 in a separate repo because it fits well with my
view that 2to3 is an extra application that happens to also be
distributed with python.
But isn't that just a theoretical property? I know that's how 2to3
started, but who, other than the committers, actually accesses the
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/2/12 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
Of course, PEP 291 could do with a list of 2.5 and 2.6 specific features
first...
I think that section is rather pointless to keep updated, since a good
list can be found in the what's new documents. What people really need
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:03, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
What do you mean by moved? I don't it has ever moved around in the sandbox.
IIRC it was moved into the sandbox from some other location at some point?
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
2010/2/10 Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:03, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
What do you mean by moved? I don't it has ever moved around in the sandbox.
IIRC it was moved into the sandbox from some other location at some point?
r52858 |
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 13:59, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
The only moving was moving a lot of the files into a lib2to3
directory. It would be nice if the hg history could be preserved for
those files.
Please see if hg.python.org/2to3 would satisfy your needs.
Cheers,
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 04:47, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
I don't believe so. My plan was to manually sync updates or use subrepos.
Using subrepos should work well for this.
It turned out that my local copy of the Subversion repository
contained the Python dir only, so I'm now
2010/2/9 Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 04:47, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
I don't believe so. My plan was to manually sync updates or use subrepos.
Using subrepos should work well for this.
Excellent.
It turned out that my local copy of the
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
How about a week after, so we have more time to adjust release procedures?
Sounds fine to me.
Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
Got any particular projects in mind?
Also I think we should
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:58, Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't setting a date premature while outstanding issues remain without a
timetable for their resolution?
If we set a date, that would imply a timetable for their resolution.
See
2010/2/8 Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
Got any particular projects in mind?
2to3.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/2/8 Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
Got any particular projects in mind?
2to3.
Does Mercurial even support merge tracking
2010/2/8 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/2/8 Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 22:51, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
Will you do test conversions of the sandbox projects, too?
Got any particular projects in mind?
2to3.
It's been a long time!
So for the past few weeks, Mercurial crew member Patrick Mezard has
been hunting for the ugly bug in hgsubversion that I'd previously been
looking at, and it finally got fixed. A new bug popped up, but then we
managed to fix that, too (thanks to the PSF for partially
2010/2/7 Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl:
It's been a long time!
Thank you very much for staying on this task! I'm still excited.
In fact, a few weeks ago I talked to Brett and we figured that we
should probably pin down a deadline. We discussed aiming at May 1, and
at this time I think
Hi Dirkjan,
On 8/02/2010 8:35 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
...
In fact, a few weeks ago I talked to Brett and we figured that we
should probably pin down a deadline. We discussed aiming at May 1, and
at this time I think that should be feasible. That also seems to
coincide with the release of
45 matches
Mail list logo
