On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 at 16:07, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> David Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> So it isn't clear why you want to remove the thing that you are
>>> advocating works so great
>>
>> Jim was quoting someone *else* that had suggested remov
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 at 16:07, Nick Coghlan wrote:
David Lyon wrote:
So it isn't clear why you want to remove the thing that you are
advocating works so great
Jim was quoting someone *else* that had suggested removing it (I'm not
sure how serious the original suggestion actually was though)
David Lyon wrote:
> So it isn't clear why you want to remove the thing that you are
> advocating works so great
Jim was quoting someone *else* that had suggested removing it (I'm not
sure how serious the original suggestion actually was though).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@
At 04:07 PM 7/18/2009 -0400, Jim Jewett wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
>> I agree. People with versioning issues *should* be using virtualenv.
Tarek Ziadé replied (and several people later agreed)
> Let's remove site-packages from Python then.
What about those people *without* versioning issues?
Michael Foord wrote:
>> I agree. People with versioning issues *should* be using virtualenv.
Tarek Ziadé replied (and several people later agreed)
> Let's remove site-packages from Python then.
What about those people *without* versioning issues?
I have no qualms suggesting that package manageme
