Re: [Python-Dev] Forking and Multithreading - enemy brothers

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes: >> >> I don't see the need for the change from fork as of yet (for >> multiprocessing) and I am leery to change the internal implementation >> and semantics right now, or

Re: [Python-Dev] Forking and Multithreading - enemy brothers

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> I don't see spawnl as a viable alternative to fork. I imagine that I, >> and others successfully mix threads and multiprocessing on non-win32 >> platforms just fine, knowing of course that fork() can cause heartburn >> if you have global lo

Re: [Python-Dev] Forking and Multithreading - enemy brothers

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:20 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes: >>> I don't see the need for the change from fork as of yet (for >>> multiprocessing) and I am leery to change the internal implement

Re: [Python-Dev] Forking and Multithreading - enemy brothers

On Feb 1, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: I don't disagree there; but then again, I haven't seen this issue arise (in my own code)/no bug reports/no test cases that show this to be a consistent issue. I'm perfectl

Re: [Python-Dev] Forking and Multithreading - enemy brothers

On Feb 1, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Michael Foord wrote: On 01/02/2010 23:03, Reid Kleckner wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: Your reasonable argument is making it difficult for me to be irrational about this. No problem. :) This begs the question - assuming

Re: [Python-Dev] Forking and Multithreading - enemy brothers

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Pascal Chambon wrote: > > > > The word "dogma" is a good one in this context however. "We" ( ;-)) have > accepted and promoted the dogma that multiprocessing is the solution to > parallelism in the face of the GIL. While it needn't be applicable in any > and > ever

Re: [Python-Dev] Another version of Python

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Michael Foord wrote: > On 26/02/2010 17:26, [email protected] wrote: >> >>     >>  Â  Â http://www.staringispolite.com/likepython/ >> >>     Simon>  I'm reminded of LOLPython:. >> >> You know, I'm thinking while both are obviously tongue-in-cheek

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Calvin Spealman wrote: > A young library solving an old problem in a way that conflicts with > many of the other implementations available for years and with zero > apparent users in the wild is not an appropriate candidate for a PEP. > Baloney. A young library pro

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Stutzbach wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Brian Quinlan wrote: >> >> import futures > > +1 on the idea, -1 on the name.  It's too similar to "from __future__ import > ...". Futures is a common term for this, and implemented named this in other la

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wrote: >    >>> import futures >    >> >    >> +1 on the idea, -1 on the name.  It's too similar to "from __future__ > import >    >> ...". > >    Jesse> Futures is a common term for this, and implemented named this in >    Jesse> other languages. I don't think w

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Stutzbach wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> >> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html > >  According to that link, Java has a module named "Concurrent" wi

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > So I don't quite get what you are after here. Are you wanting to eventually > have a generic pool class that you can simply import and use that is always > set to the best option for the platform? > And as for moving stuff from multiprocessi

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Tres Seaver wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jesse Noller wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Stutzbach >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Brian Quinlan wrote: >>>>

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Dj Gilcrease wrote: I have been playing with the feedback branch of this package for py3 and there seems to be a rather serious bug in the Process version. Using the code @ http://dpaste.com/hold/168795/ When I was running in debug mode I found that as soon as

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Ben Finney wrote: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: I have to admit Jean-Paul's explanation a pretty convincing reason for adopting "future" rather than "promise". But I'm with Skip, I would prefer that the module be named "future" rather than "futures". Has

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:34 PM, wrote: > On 02:10 am, [email protected] wrote: >> >> On 7 Mar 2010, at 03:04, Phillip J. Eby wrote: >>> >>> At 05:32 AM 3/6/2010, Brian Quinlan wrote: Using twisted (or any other asynchronous I/O framework) forces you to rewrite your I/O code. Futur

Re: [Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Dj Gilcrease wrote: > After playing with the API for a while & running into many issues with > the examples & tests crashing windows I decided to modify the API a > little and fix up the examples so they dont crash windows based > computers. > > http://code.google.

Re: [Python-Dev] Enhanced tracker privileges for dangerjim to do triage.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Michael Foord wrote: > On 26/04/2010 11:58, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> >> [snip...] >> >> I'm not claiming that the current balance is right. > > Hmm... the core development team (those who make commits once a month or > more frequently) is very small, the numbe

Re: [Python-Dev] Enhanced tracker privileges for dangerjim to do triage.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes: >> >> Just to add fuel to the fire w.r.t this discussion about >> process-improvements, lowering friction, etc. I'd like to point out >> (unintentionally tooting my own

Re: [Python-Dev] Two small PEP ideas

On Apr 30, 2010, at 3:51 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: As to Guido's point about the decision making process, Nick's right. I just want to make sure we can capture the resolution in the PEP, be it by BDFL pronouncement or "hey, silence is acceptance" email. I don't think "silence is

Re: [Python-Dev] Two small PEP ideas

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Benjamin Peterson > wrote: >> 2010/4/30 Maciej Fijalkowski : >>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson >>> wrote: >>>> 2010/4/30 Antoine Pitr

Re: [Python-Dev] Two small PEP ideas

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou : >> Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decision based >>> on committee. >>> >>> I'd much

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:59 AM, R. David Murray wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:12:05 +1000, Brian Quinlan wrote: >> On May 22, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Dj Gilcrease wrote: >> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Brian Quinlan >> > wrote: >> >> Except that now isn't the time for that discussion. This PE

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Brian Quinlan wrote: > Hey all, > > Jesse, the designated pronouncer for this PEP, has decided to keep > discussion open for a few more days. > > So fire away! Man, everyone's faster on the email thing lately than me :) Yes, I spoke to Brian, and since we're not

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Steve Holden wrote: ...snip... >> >>> Issues like the ones I'm bringing up could be fixed pretty >>> straightforwardly if it were just a matter of filing a bug on a small >>> package, but fixing a stdlib module is a major undertaking. >> >> True but I don't think

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 23/05/10 22:47, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:34:22 -0400 >> Jesse Noller  wrote: >>> >>> Brian has already agreed to name spacing it to "concurrent.futures" - >&g

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 26 May 2010 11:56, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 20:42:12 +1000 >> Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> >>> I'm not saying that Python-Dev should bend over backwards to accommodate >>> such people to the exclusion of all else, but thes

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 26/05/10 20:57, Greg Ewing wrote: >> >> Having read through the PEP again, here are my thoughts. >> * It seems unnecessarily verbose to tack "Executor" >> onto the end of every Executor subclass. They could >> simply be called ThreadPool an

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Brian Quinlan wrote: > > On 26 May 2010, at 22:42, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> On 26/05/10 20:57, Greg Ewing wrote: >>> >>> Having read through the PEP again, here are my thoughts. >>> * It seems unnecessarily verbose to tack "Executor" >>> onto the end of every Execu

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Greg Ewing wrote: > Brian Quinlan wrote: > >> I think that Jesse was planning to add some functionality to this >>  namespace. > > Even if that happens, the existing threading and multiprocessing > modules would remain outside of it. Not entirely; once concurrent.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 27/05/10 02:27, Terry Reedy wrote: >> >> I am suggesting that if we add a package, we do it right, from the >> beginning. > > This is a reasonable point of view, but I wouldn't want to hold up PEP 3148 > over it (call it a +0 for the idea i

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On May 28, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Sat, 29 May 2010 08:28:46 am Vinay Sajip wrote: I've not seen this mentioned, but on such a long thread I might have missed it: we already have a "__future__" module, as in from __future__ import with_statement and to my mind, this

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

On May 28, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 29/05/10 10:19, Jesse Noller wrote: In my opinion, it is high time for the std lib to pay more attention to the final Zen: Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those! Yes, your suggestion for how to move t

Re: [Python-Dev] Future of 2.x.

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jun 09, 2010, at 09:13 AM, Bill Janssen wrote: > >>Barry Warsaw wrote: >> >>> Note that Python 2.7 will be *maintained* for a very long time, which >>> should satisfy those folks who still require Python 2.  Anybody on >>> older (and curre

Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:44 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Stephen Thorne wrote: >>> We are also attempting to enable tax-deductible fund raising to increase >>> the likelihood of David's finding support. Perhaps we need to think >>> about a broader campaign to i

Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:19:37 pm Jesse Noller wrote: > >> Awesome. I plan on wasting as much money on the useless effort of >> moving python 3 forward as humanly possible. > > I'm sorry, but if that

Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: > At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +, [email protected] wrote: >> >> So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things >> on users that they did not fully work through themselves.  Unicode is >> prime among these: for all the talk here ab

Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 6/18/2010 10:24 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > >> http://jessenoller.com/2010/05/20/announcing-python-sprint-sponsorship/ > > This does not specify what expenses you are thinking of covering. Food is > the most obvious. &g

Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X

On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Noller wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +, [email protected] wrote: So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things

Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Jesse Noller wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J

Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)

n (and be writing Python 2 that will > more easily migrate to Python 3, if they cannot yet use 3). Yes; the website needs to change. > There seems to be a perception that the PSF can help fund developments, > and indeed Jesse Noller has made a small start with his sprint funding > propos

Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:40 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: > At 10:57 AM 6/20/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> The problem comes exactly where you find it: when *porting* existing >> code that uses aforementioned ways to alleviate the pain, you find >> that the hacks no longer work and a properly l

Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X

On Jun 20, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: On 6/20/2010 4:10 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:40 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: While reading over this thread, I'm wondering whether at least my (WSGI-related) problems in this area would be solved by the availability

Re: [Python-Dev] [ANN]: "newthreading" - an approach to simplified thread usage, and a path to getting rid of the GIL

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Michael Foord wrote: > On 26/06/2010 07:11, John Nagle wrote: >> >> We have just released a proof-of-concept implementation of a new >> approach to thread management - "newthreading". It is available >> for download at >> >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/newthre

Re: [Python-Dev] [ANN]: "newthreading" - an approach to simplified thread usage, and a path to getting rid of the GIL

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Michael Foord wrote: > On 26/06/2010 07:11, John Nagle wrote: >> >> We have just released a proof-of-concept implementation of a new >> approach to thread management - "newthreading". It is available >> for download at >> >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/newthre

Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial migration readiness (was: Taking over the Mercurial Migration)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > After reading PEP 384 and PEP 385 (finally) I got a strong impression > that they are not ready for the change (read below the line for > details), because they do not propose any workflow. So, instead of > rushing with migration I'd like

Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial migration readiness (was: Taking over the Mercurial Migration)

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:17 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: >>> >>> What is the problem with realtime synchronization and working with >>> already up to date Mercurial mirror of central SVN repository? >> >> The specifics of the conversion proce

Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial migration readiness

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:55:56 -0400 > Steve Holden wrote: >> Fred Drake wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> The two sets of repositories use different conversion tools and rules. >> >> They have nothing in

Re: [Python-Dev] SVN <-> HG workflow to split Python Library by Module

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > I planned to publish this proposal when it is finally ready and tested > with an assumption that Subversion repository will be online and > up-to-date after Mercurial migration. But recent threads showed that > currently there is no tested

Re: [Python-Dev] SVN <-> HG workflow to split Python Library by Module

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: > Am 02.07.2010 22:01, schrieb Jesse Noller: > >>> I am exhausted. >> >> fwiw - there is a/are plan(s) to break out the stdlib from "core" once >> the transition is complete, to better allow re-use be

Re: [Python-Dev] blocking 2.7

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> This is just a note that we have one bug blocking 2.7 final at the >> moment: http://bugs.python.org/issue9144 > > I added Jesse to the nosy list for that as well. > > Cheers, > Nick

Re: [Python-Dev] SVN <-> HG workflow to split Python Library by Module

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:53, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> The point of submodules a la git is subtly different.  It is that you >> can mix and match *known versions* of the modules.  So, eg, in order >> to work on recent urllib, maybe you

Re: [Python-Dev] Thank yous

On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On 4 July 2010 17:02, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >>> Now that Python 2.7 is out, I'd like to thank a few of the people who >>> made it possible: >> >> And not forgetting Benjamin himself for m

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Virgil Dupras wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > >> That's the point: selling, and commercial activity in general, is >> explicitly encouraged and permission granted by the GPL. Too many people >> speak as though it were otherwise. To thos

Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial migration readiness

ferent changeset IDs, different >> metadata, different branch/clone layout). > > That would be nice to hear about in more detail. As I understand there > is no place where it is described. I already see +1 from Fred Drake > and another +1 from Steve Holden down the thread. >

Re: [Python-Dev] Python equivalents in stdlib Was: Include datetime.py in stdlib or not?

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: >> On 7/6/2010 3:59 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: >> >> I am more interested in Brett's overall vision than this particular module. >> I understand that to be one of a stdlib that

[Python-Dev] Call for Applications - PSF Sponsored Sprints

[Sending this to Python-Dev, as it might very well be of interest as the sprints are focused on Python "core" tasks] The PSF is happy to open our first call for applications for sprint funding! Have you ever had a group of people together to hack towards a common goal? You've hosted a sprint! Ha

Re: [Python-Dev] Removing IDLE from the standard library

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > > Martin, > > Thanks for your response. > > IIRC Terry Reedy has already volunteered to do this, if I'm incorrect I'll > apologise right now to both of you. > > As for assigning bugs, I've been told to use the maintainer.rst list, so > eithe

Re: [Python-Dev] Removing IDLE from the standard library

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: >> >> I see. What copy have you been using specifically? I think I need to >> remove myself from these lists. >> >> Regards, >> Martin > > Hi Martin, > > Again thanks for the response. > > I've been working from this:- > http://svn.python.org/

Re: [Python-Dev] Removing IDLE from the standard library

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 8:22 PM, geremy condra wrote: > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:59:14 -0400 >> Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: >>> >>> Guido proposes to give someone interested in IDLE commit access, and >>> hopefully that will help in > this part

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement [ACCEPTED]

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: [snip] > Great points Jesse! Since I really don't have the time or expertise to > make a judgment on this PEP, I hereby appoint you chair of the > approval process for this PEP. That basically means that when you > think it's ready to be ap

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement [ACCEPTED]

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2010/7/11 Jesse Noller : >> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> [snip] >>> Great points Jesse! Since I really don't have the time or expertise to >>> make a judgment on t

Re: [Python-Dev] tracker contribution

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Mark Lawrence > wrote: >>  I'm extremely offended by your comments.  I'll just back off and let the >> number of outstanding bugs grow and grow and grow, until such time as people >> get fed up with Python an

Re: [Python-Dev] Python Language Summit EuroPython 2010

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Tim Golden wrote: [...snip...] > A messy discussion turned on the question of garbage collection of module > objects, and the order in which finalisers are called if at all, especially > when reference cycles exist. Marc Andre was proposing a __cleanup__ magic > f

Re: [Python-Dev] Set the namespace free!

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Bartosz Tarnowski wrote: > > Hello, guys. > > Python has more and more reserved words over time. It becomes quite > annoying, since you can not use variables and attributes of such names. > Suppose I want to make an XML parser that reads a document and returns an

Re: [Python-Dev] Thoughts fresh after EuroPython

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > While the EuroPython sprints are still going on, I am back home, and > after a somewhat restful night of sleep, I have some thoughts I'd like > to share before I get distracted. Note, I am jumping wildly between > topics. > > - Commit pri

Re: [Python-Dev] Thoughts fresh after EuroPython

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2010/7/25 Stefan Behnel : >> Nick Coghlan, 25.07.2010 08:29: >>> >>> We knew PEP 380 would be hurt by the moratorium when the moratorium >>> PEP went through. >>> >>> The goals of the moratorium itself, in making it possible to have a >>>

Re: [Python-Dev] Thoughts fresh after EuroPython

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> I thought at the last two pycons, we've all discussed that we should >> have a system in place for marking tests *and* modules within the >> stdlib as "

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84166 - python/branches/py3k/Misc/developers.txt

Misc/developers.txt    Wed Aug 18 00:58:42 2010 >> @@ -20,6 +20,10 @@ >>  Permissions History >>  ------- >> >> +- Ask Solem was given commit access on Aug 17 2010 by MvL, >> +  on recommendation by Jesse Noller

Re: [Python-Dev] Rework nntlib?

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Steve Holden wrote: > On 9/14/2010 6:45 PM, R. David Murray wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:34:33 +0530, Senthil Kumaran >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:44:30PM +0200, Baptiste Carvello wrote: >    Antoine> Like the email package, nntplib in py3k is

Re: [Python-Dev] Rework nntlib?

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Steve Holden wrote: > On 9/15/2010 10:02 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Steve Holden wrote: >>> On 9/14/2010 6:45 PM, R. David Murray wrote: >>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:34:33 +0530, Senthil Kumaran &g

Re: [Python-Dev] 3.x as the official release

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:21:11 -0400 > Steve Holden wrote: >> >> The question of when to declare 3.x the "official" release is >> interesting. I am inclined to say "when there's at least one other >> implementation at 3.2" - even if CPython

Re: [Python-Dev] 3.x as the official release

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: ...snip... >> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other >> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and >> others, but given a lack of a clear path forward (bugs, peps, etc), I >> don't think it's

Re: [Python-Dev] Rework nntlib?

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Bill Janssen wrote: > Jesse Noller wrote: > >> no one seems to take the betas or alphas for serious test drives (to >> be expected) with real code > > I wonder if there's some way to improve that situation -- perhaps by > some eng

Re: [Python-Dev] 3.x as the official release

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:35, Jesse Noller wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> ...snip... >>>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other >>>>

Re: [Python-Dev] Rework nntlib?

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Devin Cook wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> You need people with the time and willingness to download, install and >> run production code on the releases. > > This might be getting off-topic, but maybe not

Re: [Python-Dev] Rework nntlib?

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 15, 2010, at 02:02 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > >>And who do you get to maintain all the new tests and buildbots you >>spawn from running hundreds of community projects unittests? How do >>you know those tests are

Re: [Python-Dev] 3.x as the official release

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> >> +0.5 >> >> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other >> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armi

Re: [Python-Dev] 3.x as the official release

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Steve Holden wrote: > On 9/15/2010 2:47 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >>>> >>>> +0.5 >

Re: [Python-Dev] how to decide on a Python 3 design for wsgiref

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until > we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle > it. > > Thinking out loud here to keep this discussion focused, I say we give > a deadline for PEPs

Re: [Python-Dev] (Not) delaying the 3.2 release

On Sep 15, 2010, at 6:44 PM, James Mills wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> I don't see what we gain by holding up the 3.2 release. Some writing a >> Web application will need third-party modules anyway, so downloading >> wsgi3ref shouldn't be too painful. > >

Re: [Python-Dev] (Not) delaying the 3.2 release

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:55:16 -0500 > Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> > My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use >> &g

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving the developer docs?

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:29:51 -0400 > Fred Drake wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> > the first thing on the agenda is a complete rewrite of the developer >> > docs and moving them into the Doc/ directory >

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving the developer docs?

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 23, 2010, at 08:40 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: > >>That's right.  It is true that it isn't branch-specific information, >>and that does cause a little bit of irritation for me too, but neither >>is Misc/developers.txt or Misc/maintainers.r

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving the developer docs?

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > >>-1 on wiki; wikis are where good information goes off to die. > > Well, *all* documentation requires vigilance to remain relevant and current. > I'm sure you d

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving the developer docs?

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > >>On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Barry Warsaw >>wrote: >>> On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >>> >>>>-1 on wiki;

[Python-Dev] Call for proposals -- PyCon 2011

1: PyCon sprints days. Contact Emails: Van Lindberg (Conference Chair) - [email protected] Jesse Noller (Co-Chair) - [email protected] PyCon Organizers list: [email protected] ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://m

Re: [Python-Dev] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 3:56 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: > I have only done the Python 3-specific changes at this point; the diff is > here if anybody wants to review, nitpick or otherwise comment: > >  http://svn.python.org/view/peps/trunk/pep-0333.txt?r1=85014&r2=85013&pathrev=85014 > > For that matter,

Re: [Python-Dev] Mark PEP 3148 as Final?

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > I saw the code for PEP 3148 go by on python-checkins the other day. Is > there anything left to be done on that front, or can the PEP be marked > Final? > > Cheers, > Nick. Argh, yes :) ___ Python-D

Re: [Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I would like to recommend that the Python core developers start using > a code review tool such as Rietveld or Reviewboard. I don't really > care which tool we use (I'm sure there are plenty of pros and cons to > each) but I do think we sh

Re: [Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:52 AM, wrote: > On 02:47 pm, [email protected] wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Guido van Rossum >> wrote: >>> >>> I would like to recommend that the Python core developers start using >>> a code review tool such as Rietveld or Reviewboard. I don't really

Re: [Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM, geremy condra wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> >>>Not to mention; there's a lot to be learned from doing them on both >>>sides. At work, I

Re: [Python-Dev] Multiprocessing maintenance

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> You mean: actively feeling responsible for it? I guess nobody - as for >> many other modules in the standard library. >> >> Or do you mean: who is willing to work on it, in principle? > > Both. Originally the module is/was meant to be off

Re: [Python-Dev] Multiprocessing maintenance

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >> Who is doing multiprocessing maintenance these days? I thought Ask >> Solem had been given commit privs for that, but I haven't seen any >> activity from him; and Jesse is, mostly, absent. Is anyone working on >> the multiprocessing issu

Re: [Python-Dev] Bug week-end on the 20th-21st?

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Hello, > > The first 3.2 beta is scheduled by Georg for November 13th. > What would you think of scheduling a bug week-end one week later, that > is on November 20th and 21st? We would need enough core developers to > be available on #pyth

Re: [Python-Dev] Multiprocessing maintenance

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:01:43 -0400 > Jesse Noller wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" >> wrote: >> >> Who is doing multiprocessing maintenance these days? I thought Ask >

[Python-Dev] PyCon 2011 Reminder: Call for Proposals, Posters and Tutorials - us.pycon.org

1st, 2010: Talk proposals due. December 15th, 2010: Acceptance emails sent. January 19th, 2011: Early bird registration closes. March 9-10th, 2011: Tutorial days at PyCon. March 11-13th, 2011: PyCon main conference. March 14-17th, 2011: PyCon sprints days. Contact Emails: Van Lindberg (Conference Chair

Re: [Python-Dev] On breaking modules into packages Was: [issue10199] Move Demo/turtle under Lib/

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:26:53 + > Michael Foord wrote: >> >> Antoine is firmly of the opinion that making TestCase instances >> unpickleable is a feature... > > Apparently you didn't really understand me. I'm of the opinion that > making

Re: [Python-Dev] Issue #10348: concurrent.futures doesn't work on BSD

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >>> I would like to know if it should be considered as a release blocker. >>> Georg Brandl said yes on IRC. >> >> Under the condition that it is within reason to fix it before the >> release. > > What *should* be possible is to disable bui

Re: [Python-Dev] Issue #10348: concurrent.futures doesn't work on BSD

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > FreeBSD 7.2 3.x buildbot is red since some weeks (or months?) because of > a concurrent.futures failure. The problem is that > test_concurrent_futures uses many (multiprocessing) POSIX semaphores, > whereas POSIX semaphores support i

<    1   2   3   4   >