On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Glyph wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Jasper St. Pierre
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM, wrote:
>
> On 06:37 pm, jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM, wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> While I'm sympathetic to toolchain w
On Oct 20, 2012, at 7:56 PM, gelin yan wrote:
> "A pending operation is indicated when the function that started the
> operation returns FALSE, and the GetLastError function returns
> ERROR_IO_PENDING. When an I/O operation is pending, the function that started
> the operation resets the hEve
On Oct 21, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM, wrote:
>> On 06:37 pm, jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> *snip*
While I'm sympathetic to toolchain woes, I can't help but wonder if
you're being
On Oct 21, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Duncan McGreggor
wrote:
> I want to use git instead of svn so badly that I can taste it.
> Hopefully this provides the motivation necessary to maintain the repo
> :-)
For what it's worth, I haven't authored a branch for Twisted with SVN in the
last 3 years. I us
On Oct 21, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Julian Berman wrote:
> The *benefit* though for me in having mock present is that it decreases the
> lines of code necessary to write stubs and mocks. While doing so is not really
> that difficult anyhow, it *is* just a bit more clutter to do so without mock,
> and th
Hi.
I'd like to gauge any interest in (or resistance towards) adding mock
(http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/mock/mock.html) as a dependency for the
test suite.
In short, while I don't necessarily feel strongly about behavior vs. state
based verification being preferred in a general sense, I thi
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM, wrote:
> On 05:43 pm, duncan.mcgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Oct 21, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> wrote:
>>>Awesome!!!
>>>
>>>At what point did this change?
>>
>>Not sure. I don't know the history of the github repo nor its uses. I
>>
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM, wrote:
> On 06:37 pm, jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote:
>>On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM, wrote:
>>
>>*snip*
>>>While I'm sympathetic to toolchain woes, I can't help but wonder if
>>>you're being really honest here (with yourself, at least). Running
>>>"svn
>>>diff
On 06:37 pm, jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM, wrote:
>
>*snip*
>>While I'm sympathetic to toolchain woes, I can't help but wonder if
>>you're being really honest here (with yourself, at least). Running
>>"svn
>>diff" may make you feel bad inside, because svn isn't
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM, wrote:
*snip*
> While I'm sympathetic to toolchain woes, I can't help but wonder if
> you're being really honest here (with yourself, at least). Running "svn
> diff" may make you feel bad inside, because svn isn't the latest cool
> toy, but a *hurdle*? It's ju
On 05:43 pm, duncan.mcgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>On Oct 21, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> wrote:
>>Awesome!!!
>>
>>At what point did this change?
>
>Not sure. I don't know the history of the github repo nor its uses. I
>was certainly surprised with Glyph said that pull req
On Oct 21, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.cc> wrote:
> Awesome!!!
>
> At what point did this change?
Not sure. I don't know the history of the github repo nor its uses. I was
certainly surprised with Glyph said that pull requests would be accepted.
> ISTR the lack of interes
Awesome!!!
At what point did this change? ISTR the lack of interest in maintaining the
Github account was pretty much a consequence of it seeming pretty
pointless: ie it was still easier to just use SVN than to figure out where
the parts work together.
Will code review also be happening at a pull
13 matches
Mail list logo
