Why r69846 is not merged to "release26-maint"?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I have found a few flaws in 2.6 documentation. I was going to correct them when I found they are already solved in trunk in r69846, done by mark.dickinson in february.
Is there any reason for that commit not to be merged to 2.6 branch?. Am I missing anything?.
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBSkzGsJlgi5GaxT1NAQIJBwP8C5nnSw5wKjlM/2y5UtS96kbvGipC6EFV 9cbxF3s6vJOGbDqKdgm6VMz82DNIsIw7YhUDw2ACB9Q/HGAwno5u56/eVXCfA53N uDGYyQ76Ebty2HqbEdcve3n5UH6/2O5Yd3koFpaBm0/UrA/DayFSNAKyqGL3pNZq To6p6r/0ots= =jMbT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2009/7/2 Jesus Cea <jcea@jcea.es>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I have found a few flaws in 2.6 documentation. I was going to correct them when I found they are already solved in trunk in r69846, done by mark.dickinson in february.
Is there any reason for that commit not to be merged to 2.6 branch?. Am I missing anything?.
People usually don't merge documentation changes because it's more trouble than it's worth. You can merge that one, though.
-- Regards, Benjamin
Speaking as a past release manager, the reason that things like that didn't get merged is because... drumroll... no-one merged them. It's another tree to checkout and patch. Personally, I was always of the belief that if someone wanted to fix docs (or comments, or other things like that) in a maintenance branch, more power to them.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin@python.org>wrote:
2009/7/2 Jesus Cea <jcea@jcea.es>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I have found a few flaws in 2.6 documentation. I was going to correct them when I found they are already solved in trunk in r69846, done by mark.dickinson in february.
Is there any reason for that commit not to be merged to 2.6 branch?. Am I missing anything?.
People usually don't merge documentation changes because it's more trouble than it's worth. You can merge that one, though.
-- Regards, Benjamin
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 00:58, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Speaking as a past release manager, the reason that things like that didn't get merged is because... drumroll... no-one merged them. It's another tree to checkout and patch. Personally, I was always of the belief that if someone wanted to fix docs (or comments, or other things like that) in a maintenance branch, more power to them.
What I do is accumulate a list of doc fixes I've made, and when the list gets to some undefined size or age, I merge them all in one svnmerge batch. I think Georg does something similar.
--David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony Baxter wrote:
Speaking as a past release manager, the reason that things like that didn't get merged is because... drumroll... no-one merged them.
Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were merges are painless :-).
It's another tree to checkout and patch. Personally, I was always of the belief that if someone wanted to fix docs (or comments, or other things like that) in a maintenance branch, more power to them.
I already have the checkouts for the maintained branches. I will try to merge that patch, although it is old and will probably generate a ton of conflicts. Let's see...
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBSkzO+5lgi5GaxT1NAQLUFwP/QfS/U20tSS1Xd6P9nm3V2OADxOs9aFSK TEpluTRSZ3o3E8GoXGjx1BBns3rffM7+VSIIvnlzujzTF9r4nUxy26TNjDKBnZ9j aByQAtJVY2FY3nYYIxZ1SJn1w4HWBtueckZV5fCZmMRpLWEQSwfbVFIq3+6IHwC2 xCVByx9x+yI= =SvWZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (jcea@jcea.es) wrote:
Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were merges are painless :-).
For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges easier, so that would make your comment moot.
-- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B When you do something, you should burn yourself completely, like a good bonfire, leaving no trace of yourself...
2009/7/2 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai@in-nomine.org>:
-On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (jcea@jcea.es) wrote:
Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were merges are painless :-).
For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges easier, so that would make your comment moot.
They're about 2^987987979 times faster, though than with svnmerge.py.
-- Regards, Benjamin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2009/7/2 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai@in-nomine.org>:
-On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (jcea@jcea.es) wrote:
Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were merges are painless :-). For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges easier, so that would make your comment moot.
They're about 2^987987979 times faster, though than with svnmerge.py.
And you don't forget any merge, because you commit to the maintenance and then merge to the trunk.
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBSkzVBJlgi5GaxT1NAQLXrQP/atOdGpe5bidVWexezSOQAq9Zzkgf8pd6 4lDzQqxvDF8K2TeMNT7s4EXib0OQGLxP/jjtp+Tupb/e0oMu8t9wFNrdhJsatNyR SCyLlfvk/lr5aAFeFGwwZOkMcudqfhPXbq3CEmz3g0dchnITqEqSN1xv2K6YUZJe qdIoBOCUt4U= =OYEB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven < asmodai@in-nomine.org> wrote:
-On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (jcea@jcea.es) wrote:
Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were merges are painless :-).
For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges easier, so that would make your comment moot.
-- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B When you do something, you should burn yourself completely, like a good bonfire, leaving no trace of yourself...
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
2009/7/2 Anthony Baxter <anthonybaxter@gmail.com>
The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x.
If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven < asmodai@in-nomine.org> wrote:
-On [20090702 17:15], Jesus Cea (jcea@jcea.es) wrote:
Ughhh. This is actually a good reason to migrate to mercurial, were merges are painless :-).
For all I know Mercurial doesn't make the issue of resolving content merges easier, so that would make your comment moot.
-- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B When you do something, you should burn yourself completely, like a good bonfire, leaving no trace of yourself...
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
On Jul 2, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit
that 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with
another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce
any new syntax or tweak semantics.
Right. There have been rumblings of wanting a 3.0.2, and I could do
it if the clamor were loud enough, but I still think we don't need one.
-Barry
I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2 release. We can call it the "homage to 1.6" release. <god-I've-been-involved-with-python-too-long/> Anthony
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
On Jul 2, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that
3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
Right. There have been rumblings of wanting a 3.0.2, and I could do it if the clamor were loud enough, but I still think we don't need one.
-Barry
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2
release. We can call it the "homage to 1.6" release.
We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that reference!)
<god-I've-been-involved-with-python-too-long/>
too-much-monty-python-as-a-child-ly y'rs, -Barry
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2 release. We
can call it the "homage to 1.6" release.
We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that reference!)
<god-I've-been-involved-with-python-too-long/>
too-much-monty-python-as-a-child-ly y'rs
Considering Georg just discovered Fawlty Towers I think we might need to have required British humour training for all core committers.
-Brett
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 at 11:43, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2 release. We
can call it the "homage to 1.6" release.
We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that reference!)
<god-I've-been-involved-with-python-too-long/>
too-much-monty-python-as-a-child-ly y'rs
Considering Georg just discovered Fawlty Towers I think we might need to have required British humour training for all core committers.
I can see it now...the TV and movie track at PyCon 2010, with attendance mandatory for anyone wanting to participate in the Core sprint...
--David
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 14:56, R. David Murray<rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:
I can see it now...the TV and movie track at PyCon 2010, with attendance mandatory for anyone wanting to participate in the Core sprint...
We actually had a room or two for evening videos at a PyCon (both?) in Dallas. Somebody brought the boxed set of the Flying Circus show and had it running. I fondly recall processing email while chuckling...
It wasn't very well attended though.
-- David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>
David Goodger schrieb:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 14:56, R. David Murray<rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:
I can see it now...the TV and movie track at PyCon 2010, with attendance mandatory for anyone wanting to participate in the Core sprint...
We actually had a room or two for evening videos at a PyCon (both?) in Dallas. Somebody brought the boxed set of the Flying Circus show and had it running. I fondly recall processing email while chuckling...
It wasn't very well attended though.
There is a slight chance that EuroPython 2011 might come to Germany -- in this case, some kind of Monty Python showing must be arranged. As you all know, we really can use the education.
Georg
-- Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less. Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out.
Georg Brandl schrieb:
David Goodger schrieb:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 14:56, R. David Murray<rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:
I can see it now...the TV and movie track at PyCon 2010, with attendance mandatory for anyone wanting to participate in the Core sprint... We actually had a room or two for evening videos at a PyCon (both?) in Dallas. Somebody brought the boxed set of the Flying Circus show and had it running. I fondly recall processing email while chuckling...
It wasn't very well attended though.
There is a slight chance that EuroPython 2011 might come to Germany -- in this case, some kind of Monty Python showing must be arranged. As you all know, we really can use the education.
Georg, I suggest that you get a head start by watching these youtube clips: http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython
Are there already plans in which city EP11 might be hosted? You know Spamalot is playing in Cologne, too. :)
Christian
Christian Heimes schrieb:
Georg Brandl schrieb:
David Goodger schrieb:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 14:56, R. David Murray<rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:
I can see it now...the TV and movie track at PyCon 2010, with attendance mandatory for anyone wanting to participate in the Core sprint... We actually had a room or two for evening videos at a PyCon (both?) in Dallas. Somebody brought the boxed set of the Flying Circus show and had it running. I fondly recall processing email while chuckling...
It wasn't very well attended though.
There is a slight chance that EuroPython 2011 might come to Germany -- in this case, some kind of Monty Python showing must be arranged. As you all know, we really can use the education.
Georg, I suggest that you get a head start by watching these youtube clips: http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython
Oh, myself I'm already quite familiar with the classics. But can you imagine people walking the streets out there not knowing anything about dead parrots?
Are there already plans in which city EP11 might be hosted? You know Spamalot is playing in Cologne, too. :)
Cologne is exactly where one group is planning to make it happen. I assume a discussion and planning list, whether for EP or for a smaller German unconference, is going to be created soon.
Georg
-- Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less. Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out.
On Jul 5, 2009, at 5:20 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Oh, myself I'm already quite familiar with the classics. But can you imagine people walking the streets out there not knowing anything
about dead parrots?
I think we need a server side Mercurial plugin to reject any revision
that doesn't quote MP in its commit message.
-Barry
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org <mailto:barry@python.org>> wrote:
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote: I think Barry should totally cut a completely pointless 3.0.2 release. We can call it the "homage to 1.6" release. We can code name it "Here Comes Another One" (guess that reference!) <god-I've-been-involved-with-python-too-long/> too-much-monty-python-as-a-child-ly y'rsConsidering Georg just discovered Fawlty Towers I think we might need to have required British humour training for all core committers.
It was kind of thrust in our faces at the EuroPython meeting this week. At dinner the table I was sitting on was entitled "Ministry of Silly Walks". If ever there's a Python certification it should definitely involve knowing *something* about that series ;-)
regards Steve
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ Watch PyCon on video now! http://pycon.blip.tv/
Le jeudi 02 juillet 2009 à 11:43 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :
Considering Georg just discovered Fawlty Towers I think we might need to have required British humour training for all core committers.
I object to the British humour monopoly. I know as a fact that Georg likes French humour a lot -- actually I'm sure he's still launghing.
Regards
Antoine.
The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x.If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
Unfortunately, that decision was never communicated to the committers, or, for that matter, to people present at the language summit :-(
So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2 release.
Regards, Martin
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:01, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:
The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x.If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
Unfortunately, that decision was never communicated to the committers, or, for that matter, to people present at the language summit :-(
Sorry about that.
So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2 release.
If Barry is up for it I am not against it, but if we do go with it I think it should be a quickie release and then retire 3.0.x completely.
-Brett
On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
If Barry is up for it I am not against it, but if we do go with it I
think it should be a quickie release and then retire 3.0.x completely.
It's not difficult to actually cut the release. What is a pain is
managing all the bugs leading up to it. If we announce that we're
going to do a 3.0.2, people who thought 3.0 was dead may ask for their
favorite bug fix to be backported, etc.
If we're going to do one, then we'll need to schedule it and give
people a chance to actually commit to it for a few weeks. We may even
need to do release candidates.
TBH, I'm not sure there's enough interest in doing it. We're not
recommending people actually /use/ 3.0, and I know for one data point
that Ubuntu doesn't care.
-Barry
So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2 release.
I'm one of those people who have backported fixes to 3.0, but I do not want a 3.0.2 to go out now thet 3.1 has been released. The latest version should not get upstaged. Essentially, 3.1 is what 3.0.x should have been. The 3.0.x series is defective and needs to die-off and be forgotten.
So, not only would 3.0.2 be a waste of Barry's time, it would be a step backwards. A while ago, Barry said that 3.0.2 would not happen, so at that point several of us stopped backporting fixes. So, 3.0.2 still has known bugs and I think it would be a mistake to release it.
Raymond
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 15:21, Raymond Hettinger <python@rcn.com> wrote:
So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2 release.
I'm one of those people who have backported fixes to 3.0, but I do not want a 3.0.2 to go out now thet 3.1 has been released. The latest version should not get upstaged. Essentially, 3.1 is what 3.0.x should have been. The 3.0.x series is defective and needs to die-off and be forgotten.
So, not only would 3.0.2 be a waste of Barry's time, it would be a step backwards. A while ago, Barry said that 3.0.2 would not happen, so at that point several of us stopped backporting fixes. So, 3.0.2 still has known bugs and I think it would be a mistake to release it.
Sounds like general consensus that 3.0.2 isn't worth it. Is an announcement on c.l.p.a and something on www.python.org enough to get the word out that 3.0.2 is not going to happen and 3.0 users should migrate to 3.1?
-Brett
On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Sounds like general consensus that 3.0.2 isn't worth it. Is an
announcement on c.l.p.a and something on www.python.org enough to
get the word out that 3.0.2 is not going to happen and 3.0 users
should migrate to 3.1?
I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download
pages.
There will be no 3.0.2. -Barry
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 at 18:26, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Sounds like general consensus that 3.0.2 isn't worth it. Is an announcement on c.l.p.a and something on www.python.org enough to get the word out that 3.0.2 is not going to happen and 3.0 users should migrate to 3.1?
I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download pages.
There will be no 3.0.2.
+1
(I'm one of the other people who was backporting things until recently.)
--David
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:35 AM, R. David Murray<rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 at 18:26, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Sounds like general consensus that 3.0.2 isn't worth it. Is an announcement on c.l.p.a and something on www.python.org enough to get the word out that 3.0.2 is not going to happen and 3.0 users should migrate to 3.1?
I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download pages.
There will be no 3.0.2.
+1
(I'm one of the other people who was backporting things until recently.)
+1 too, looking forward to Mercurial too ;)
Tarek
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download pages.
There will be no 3.0.2.
+1 for your decision.
Are there any known incompatibilities that could break a Python 3.0 script on 3.1?
2009/7/2 Christian Heimes <christian@cheimes.de>:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I will announce this to py-list, py-ann, and update the 3.0 download pages.
There will be no 3.0.2.
+1 for your decision.
Are there any known incompatibilities that could break a Python 3.0 script on 3.1?
This is the short list: http://docs.python.org/dev/py3k/whatsnew/3.1.html#porting-to-python-3-1
I'm sure there's a variety of py3k transition problem fixes that break strict compatibility, though.
-- Regards, Benjamin
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2 release.
I'm one of those people who have backported fixes to 3.0, but I do not want a 3.0.2 to go out now thet 3.1 has been released. The latest version should not get upstaged. Essentially, 3.1 is what 3.0.x should have been. The 3.0.x series is defective and needs to die-off and be forgotten.
So, not only would 3.0.2 be a waste of Barry's time, it would be a step backwards. A while ago, Barry said that 3.0.2 would not happen, so at that point several of us stopped backporting fixes. So, 3.0.2 still has known bugs and I think it would be a mistake to release it.
Suggested text for press release:
""" 3.0 is dead. It is pushing up the daisies. It has ceased to be. It is no more. It has joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-release. """
regards Steve
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ Watch PyCon on video now! http://pycon.blip.tv/
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"<martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:
[Brett]
If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
Unfortunately, that decision was never communicated to the committers, or, for that matter, to people present at the language summit :-(
So people have continued to merge to 3.0. I think they deserve a 3.0.2 release.
Speaking as one of the people who occasionally remembers to backport to 3.0 (though clearly I failed with r69846), it wouldn't bother me at all if there were no 3.0.2. I can't speak for any of the other backporters, of course.
I'm not really sure who 3.0.2 would be useful for.
Mark
Mark Dickinson wrote:
Speaking as one of the people who occasionally remembers to backport to 3.0 (though clearly I failed with r69846), it wouldn't bother me at all if there were no 3.0.2. I can't speak for any of the other backporters, of course.
I'm not really sure who 3.0.2 would be useful for.
I agree with what Mark has said above (it also means I can just svn switch my 3.0 checkout to 3.1 rather than adding a 5th local working copy).
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brett Cannon wrote:
If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
If that is true (I agree with that policy, btw), please confirm "officially". Can we forget about 3.0 branch?. Can I delete that checkout from my system?.
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBSk6FyZlgi5GaxT1NAQLeugQAmZxcoRkPBSQD1GK722Rz8d18+z5zH7Di ZfCYJ0T0EFoJQkefmAQKbstcGPglFGahRE4ZvzjhPPKq3KayRlPKdoAQuWWFVgpR tYPbLNhcmhn+TtfrMFZJvkqahw/VmfRJvA6HiyQFw77iUjTDfPL8Vwa+zfMqZBSF 4+Zzsn8e/I8= =WsHl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 18:27, Jesus Cea<jcea@jcea.es> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brett Cannon wrote:
If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
If that is true (I agree with that policy, btw), please confirm "officially".
Barry announced it as officially as possible: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2009-July/718561.html
I followed up with a python.org front-page news item & PSF blog entry (both linking to that message on python-list).
Can we forget about 3.0 branch?. Can I delete that checkout from my system?.
Seems so.
-- David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>
On Jul 3, 2009, at 6:32 PM, David Goodger wrote:
I followed up with a python.org front-page news item & PSF blog entry (both linking to that message on python-list).
I added some text to the Python 3.0.1 download page and added a link
to Python 3.1.
-Barry
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 15:27, Jesus Cea <jcea@jcea.es> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brett Cannon wrote:
If I remember correctly I believe we decided at the language summit that 3.0 is just dead now that 3.1 is out and we shouldn't even bother with another point release since 3.1 followed 3.0 so closely and didn't introduce any new syntax or tweak semantics.
If that is true (I agree with that policy, btw), please confirm "officially". Can we forget about 3.0 branch?. Can I delete that checkout from my system?.
It's official.
-Brett
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote:
The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x.
No, we have 2.7, 2.6, 3.2, and 3.1.
Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk is...painful. Because of the (lack of) speed.
--David
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:34:38PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote: Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk is...painful. Because of the (lack of) speed.
Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority list, then?
--amk
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:46, A.M. Kuchling <amk@amk.ca> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:34:38PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote: Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk is...painful. Because of the (lack of) speed.
Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority list, then?
I thought it was already high on the priority list and that Dirkjan was actively working on the transition.
-Brett
Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk is...painful. Because of the (lack of) speed.
Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority list, then?
That's one of the typical "we" questions... Currently, there is a single person working on that transition, so progress is naturally slow.
Regards, Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Please, somebody fix the reply-to :)
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:34:38PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote: Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk is...painful. Because of the (lack of) speed.
Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority list, then?
Please, do. I can't wait, and my activity is pretty low... (to change soon)
I already asked for the mercurial transition status a few days ago, with *no* (zero) answers. How is it going?. Can I help in any way?.
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBSk6HaJlgi5GaxT1NAQIw7wP/a4JoGH1cPuQHOHE2NBHhIXdQwrnmkNEv a5k3tX5UN6PmEMsko45ukLREMPVelINb6TatiQpqWGFLcasElQGlMoBOk95LKuiu VTNVkRfxpaO5BdDo6sz3bnHWanfYanBxD8khXju7K9IR94mzr6NSo01TA1oylEJT Lz51PJUlq+M= =WCBo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 15:34, Jesus Cea <jcea@jcea.es> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Please, somebody fix the reply-to :)
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:34:38PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 at 02:13, Anthony Baxter wrote: Using svnmerge to commit to three branches in addition to trunk is...painful. Because of the (lack of) speed.
Should we push the Mercurial transition higher on the priority list, then?
Please, do. I can't wait, and my activity is pretty low... (to change soon)
I already asked for the mercurial transition status a few days ago, with *no* (zero) answers. How is it going?. Can I help in any way?.
It's being discussed on pyhon-dev. Dirkjan is the person to talk to if you want to help out.
-Brett
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony Baxter wrote:
The particulars of the revision control system don't matter as much as the discipline of teaching people to commit fixes. Right now, we have 2.6.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x.
And trunk and py3k.
Having the right technology helps. The merge features of SVN 1.5 are limited but blessing.
But I don't want to start a flamewar. The issue is already settled.
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBSk6FUJlgi5GaxT1NAQKo1wP8DTqberDUsVi8MsauiUFzZdKD8gKNfT0h OOENt+ardwYdj5h/xw7e2j//h01lBbJEn/fKHumVFBMC4vS2NyuRILgtbjCLFgx0 rj1AVv3lDGtSQdJcffZMTUl0xyRmiHG1K8MXGxnGJe65qv9Uhc0OEI7c6Lk5xeOF Iq/J8Fw2KEU= =AO5E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (18)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
A.M. Kuchling -
Anthony Baxter -
Antoine Pitrou -
Barry Warsaw -
Benjamin Peterson -
Brett Cannon -
Christian Heimes -
David Goodger -
Georg Brandl -
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven -
Jesus Cea -
Mark Dickinson -
Nick Coghlan -
R. David Murray -
Raymond Hettinger -
Steve Holden -
Tarek Ziadé