On 26 May 2015 23:25, "Paul Moore" wrote:
>
> On 26 May 2015 at 13:55, Steve Dower wrote:
> > The builds I am responsible for include it because someone reported an
issue
> > and was persistent and helpful enough that I fixed it for them.
> >
> > That said, until MinGW agrees on a stable branch/v
On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:30:02 -0700
Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> So, in all three cases it's work that's been under development for a
> while. These people did this work out of the kindness of their hearts,
> to make Python better. As a community we want to encourage that and
> make sure these d
On 27 May 2015 at 09:10, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The old distutils docs aren't gone, the top level links just moved to the
> distutils package docs: https://docs.python.org/3/library/distutils.html
>
> I kept them (with the same deep link URLs) because I know there's stuff in
> there that isn't curr
On 27 May 2015 18:18, "Antoine Pitrou" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:30:02 -0700
> Larry Hastings wrote:
> >
> > So, in all three cases it's work that's been under development for a
> > while. These people did this work out of the kindness of their hearts,
> > to make Python better. As a co
On Wed, 27 May 2015 18:34:29 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> I'd actually like to pursue a more nuanced view of what's permitted in
> maintenance releases, based on a combination of the language moratorium
> PEP, and an approach inspired by PEP 466, requiring that every feature
> added in a mainten
On 27 May 2015 at 19:02, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> At some point, we should recognize our pain is more important than
> others' when it comes to the fitness of *our* community. I don't see
> those other people caring about our pain, and proposing e.g. to offload
> some of the maintenance burden (for
On May 27, 2015, at 06:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>I'd actually like to pursue a more nuanced view of what's permitted in
>maintenance releases, based on a combination of the language moratorium
>PEP, and an approach inspired by PEP 466, requiring that every feature
>added in a maintenance release
On May 27, 2015 at 4:18:11 AM, Antoine Pitrou ([email protected]) wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:30:02 -0700
Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> So, in all three cases it's work that's been under development for a
> while. These people did this work out of the kindness of their hearts,
> to make
On May 27, 2015 at 10:32:47 AM, Barry Warsaw ([email protected]) wrote:
> On May 27, 2015, at 06:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> >I'd actually like to pursue a more nuanced view of what's permitted in
> >maintenance releases, based on a combination of the language moratorium
> >PEP, and an approac
Antoine Pitrou writes:
> For some reason it sounds like we should be altruistic towards
> people who are not :-)
There's always a question of how far to go, of course, but one of the
things I like about this community is the attention the developers
give to others' pain. In that sense, I'm def
Hi!
I'm trying to use embedding of Python in my program.
Simple C-program, compiled in Debug, that uses py-script that just
imports "ctypes" gives me an error about "no module named "_ctypes".
How to compile python lib in Visual Studio statically with ctypes
support? Or how to use shared ctypes l
This mailing list is for the development *of *Python, not *with* it. The
best place to ask this would be on [email protected].
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:08 PM Uladzimir Kryvian
wrote:
> Hi!
> I'm trying to use embedding of Python in my program.
>
> Simple C-program, compiled in Debug, that
On 5/27/2015 4:16 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I second that sentiment. But it strikes me that we're doing this
because our release frequency is completely inadapted. If we had
feature releases, say, every 6 or 9 months, the problem wouldn't really
exist in the first place.
How about a feature re
On May 27, 2015, at 05:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>How about a feature release once a year, on a schedule we choose as best for
>us.
We discussed timed releases ages ago and they were rejected by the majority.
Time-based releases can make a lot of sense, especially if the interval is
short enough.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 27, 2015, at 05:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> >How about a feature release once a year, on a schedule we choose as best
> for
> >us.
>
> We discussed timed releases ages ago and they were rejected by the
> majority.
> Time-based releas
On Wed, 27 May 2015 17:15:39 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/27/2015 4:16 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> > I second that sentiment. But it strikes me that we're doing this
> > because our release frequency is completely inadapted. If we had
> > feature releases, say, every 6 or 9 months, the probl
On 28 May 2015 07:48, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>> On May 27, 2015, at 05:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>> >How about a feature release once a year, on a schedule we choose as
best for
>> >us.
>>
>> We discussed timed releases ages ago an
On 28 May 2015 08:31, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
>
> On 28 May 2015 07:48, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 27, 2015, at 05:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >>
> >> >How about a feature release once a year, on a schedule we choose as
On 28 May 2015 at 10:17, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
> Corporation.
>
>
>
> Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based dispatch
> in Python 2.x (wh
> On May 27, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2015 at 10:17, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi
> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
> Corporation.
>
>
>
> Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1. It prevents
loading the coverage.py extension. It'd be great to get a new beta
release soon. :)
--Ned.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/list
On 28 May 2015 at 12:51, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1.
Aye, we only found out about the missing test case via feedback *on*
the beta. We had never needed to worry about it before, but it turns
out all our extension modules in the standard libr
On 2015-05-27 11:02 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>It prevents
>loading the coverage.py extension. It'd be great to get a new beta release
>soon. :)
Until your email, I hadn't fully thought through the consequences, but
the bug is actually going to block a*lot* of potential testing of the
beta relea
Nick Coghlan schrieb am 28.05.2015 um 05:02:
> On 28 May 2015 at 12:51, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1.
>
> Aye, we only found out about the missing test case via feedback *on*
> the beta. We had never needed to worry about it before, but it tur
On 05/27/2015 07:51 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1. It
prevents loading the coverage.py extension. It'd be great to get a
new beta release soon. :)
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0478/
//arry/
On 28 May 2015 at 14:30, Larry Hastings wrote:
> On 05/27/2015 07:51 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
> This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1. It prevents
> loading the coverage.py extension. It'd be great to get a new beta release
> soon. :)
>
>
> http://legacy.python.org/dev/pe
On 5/27/2015 9:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
+1 from me, for basically the same reasons Guido gives: Python 2.7 is
going to be with us for a long time, and this particular change
shouldn't have any externally visible impacts at either an ABI or API level.
Immediately after a release, giving the p
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2015 at 14:30, Larry Hastings wrote:
> > On 05/27/2015 07:51 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> >
> > This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1. It prevents
> > loading the coverage.py extension. It'd be great to get a
On 05/27/2015 08:02 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 12:51, Ned Batchelder wrote:
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1.
Aye, we only found out about the missing test case via feedback *on*
the beta. We had never needed to worry about it before, but it turns
out a
Why now? We intentionally decided not to do this for 2.7 in the past
because it was too late for the release cutoff.
Has anyone benchmarked compiling python in profile-opt mode vs having the
computed goto patch? I'd *expect* the benefits to be the roughly the same.
Has this been compared to that
On 05/27/2015 10:35 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
Well, certainly this sounds like something that needs to go into the
regression test suite. Can someone create the issue?
... and the patch?
NM, the existing fix already added a test to the regression test suite.
I should have read the issue fi
31 matches
Mail list logo
