Re: [Python-Dev] Python-Dev Digest, Vol 108, Issue 7
Ryan Paullin
thanks for the reply hastings ive been working on a loopback interface its done On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:00 AM, <python-dev-request@python.org> wrote:
Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to python-dev@python.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to python-dev-request@python.org
You can reach the person managing the list at python-dev-owner@python.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Python-Dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?) (martin@v.loewis.de) 2. Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (anatoly techtonik) 3. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Mark Lawrence) 4. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Stefan Behnel) 5. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Paul Boddie) 6. EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled. (Larry Hastings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:27:02 +0200 From: martin@v.loewis.de To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?) Message-ID: <20120705202702.Horde.Yh-RBqGZi1VP9dx2H7Nj-nA@webmail.df.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
You won't get any changes in to CPython by creating pull requests. We use http://bugs.python.org/ for that, sorry.
Question -- is there a reason to abide by this rule for docs? That is, if we could get a sympathetic core dev to look at pull requests for docs as part of a streamlined process, would it cause problems?
How do you communicate a "pull request"? On bitbucket, there is a "pull request" UI resulting in a tracker item being generated (and an email being sent), but hg.python.org doesn't have a notion of pull requests. Of course, you could use any communication means (email, telephone call, carrier pigeon) to request a pull from a "sympathetic core dev".
(What I'm really asking is whether or the bugs.python.org process is considered critical for potentially minor doc changes and additions.)
The sympathetic core dev is mostly free to bypass any submission process initially; commits that bypass established procedures will likely be questioned only after the fact.
In the specific case, I'd be worried to verify that the submitter has provided a contributor form. That's easy to do in the bug tracker, but difficult to do in an offline pull request. Of course, for a really minor doc change (e.g. typo fixes), no contrib form is necessary.
Regards, Martin
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:41:29 +0300 From: anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> To: Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> Cc: python-ideas@python.org, python-dev@python.org Subject: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <CAPkN8x+A-OYWNLNKDH= 6GnQn+o_Tb3LMnimHYs9zkYmWR1GTgA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> wrote:
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to the same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" for others to admire.
No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An "organic" way to keep traffic low.
Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to munch-munch on the sequence data).
Wheew. :-F
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:55:09 +0100 From: Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> To: python-dev@python.org Cc: python-ideas@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <jt4re5$3gs$1@dough.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> wrote:
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to
On 05/07/2012 20:41, anatoly techtonik wrote: the
same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" for others to admire.
No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An "organic" way to keep traffic low.
Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to munch-munch on the sequence data).
Wheew. :-F
Can I safely assume that you are volunteering to do the work required?
-- Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:58:52 +0200 From: Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> To: python-dev@python.org Cc: python-ideas@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <jt4rlt$45k$1@dough.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41: the
same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time?
Yes, that is exactly the question.
It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has pointed out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look it up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself, or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on others to do it for you?
Stefan
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:11:46 +0200 From: Paul Boddie <paul@boddie.org.uk> To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <201207052311.46867.paul@boddie.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Stefan Behnel wrote:
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41:
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time?
Yes, that is exactly the question.
It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has pointed out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look it up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself, or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on others to do it for you?
To be fair, Anatoly has done quite a bit of maintenance on some of the Wiki content around various aspects of the project, so it's not as if he's demanding anything out of the ordinary or asking for others to do things that he isn't already doing in some sense. My experience is that there usually needs to be some willingness on the other end of the transaction, and if it takes repetition to encourage it amongst those who don't see the current situation as a problem for them, then so be it.
Of course, this kind of documentation activity, where one gathers together historical decisions and the consensus from long-forgotten discussions, is pretty thankless work. I occasionally regard it as worthwhile if only to bring up something someone said as an inconvenient interruption in any current discussion, but that's a pretty minimal reward for all the effort unless one has such work as part of one's daily routine.
Paul
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:47:30 +0200 From: Larry Hastings <larry@hastings.org> To: python-dev@python.org, python-committers@python.org Subject: [Python-Dev] EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled. Message-ID: <4FF68A02.8000500@hastings.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
I only got one more RSVP and zero topics for the docket. So let's sprint instead.
See you at the PyCon 2013 Language Summit,
//arry/
Attachments:
- attachment.htm (text/html — 17.8 KB)
Ryan Paullin
spoke too early on its done sorry On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Ryan Paullin <ryanpaullin@gmail.com> wrote:
thanks for the reply hastings ive been working on a loopback interface its done
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:00 AM, <python-dev-request@python.org> wrote:
Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to python-dev@python.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to python-dev-request@python.org
You can reach the person managing the list at python-dev-owner@python.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Python-Dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?) (martin@v.loewis.de) 2. Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (anatoly techtonik) 3. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Mark Lawrence) 4. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Stefan Behnel) 5. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Paul Boddie) 6. EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled. (Larry Hastings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:27:02 +0200 From: martin@v.loewis.de To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?) Message-ID: <20120705202702.Horde.Yh-RBqGZi1VP9dx2H7Nj-nA@webmail.df.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
You won't get any changes in to CPython by creating pull requests. We use http://bugs.python.org/ for that, sorry.
Question -- is there a reason to abide by this rule for docs? That is, if we could get a sympathetic core dev to look at pull requests for docs as part of a streamlined process, would it cause problems?
How do you communicate a "pull request"? On bitbucket, there is a "pull request" UI resulting in a tracker item being generated (and an email being sent), but hg.python.org doesn't have a notion of pull requests. Of course, you could use any communication means (email, telephone call, carrier pigeon) to request a pull from a "sympathetic core dev".
(What I'm really asking is whether or the bugs.python.org process is considered critical for potentially minor doc changes and additions.)
The sympathetic core dev is mostly free to bypass any submission process initially; commits that bypass established procedures will likely be questioned only after the fact.
In the specific case, I'd be worried to verify that the submitter has provided a contributor form. That's easy to do in the bug tracker, but difficult to do in an offline pull request. Of course, for a really minor doc change (e.g. typo fixes), no contrib form is necessary.
Regards, Martin
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:41:29 +0300 From: anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> To: Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> Cc: python-ideas@python.org, python-dev@python.org Subject: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <CAPkN8x+A-OYWNLNKDH= 6GnQn+o_Tb3LMnimHYs9zkYmWR1GTgA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> wrote: the
same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" for others to admire.
No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An "organic" way to keep traffic low.
Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to munch-munch on the sequence data).
Wheew. :-F
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:55:09 +0100 From: Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> To: python-dev@python.org Cc: python-ideas@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <jt4re5$3gs$1@dough.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> wrote:
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to
On 05/07/2012 20:41, anatoly techtonik wrote: the
same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" for others to admire.
No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An "organic" way to keep traffic low.
Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to munch-munch on the sequence data).
Wheew. :-F
Can I safely assume that you are volunteering to do the work required?
-- Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:58:52 +0200 From: Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> To: python-dev@python.org Cc: python-ideas@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <jt4rlt$45k$1@dough.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41: the
same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time?
Yes, that is exactly the question.
It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has pointed out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look it up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself, or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on others to do it for you?
Stefan
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:11:46 +0200 From: Paul Boddie <paul@boddie.org.uk> To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <201207052311.46867.paul@boddie.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41:
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time?
Yes, that is exactly the question.
It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has
Stefan Behnel wrote: pointed
out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look it up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself, or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on others to do it for you?
To be fair, Anatoly has done quite a bit of maintenance on some of the Wiki content around various aspects of the project, so it's not as if he's demanding anything out of the ordinary or asking for others to do things that he isn't already doing in some sense. My experience is that there usually needs to be some willingness on the other end of the transaction, and if it takes repetition to encourage it amongst those who don't see the current situation as a problem for them, then so be it.
Of course, this kind of documentation activity, where one gathers together historical decisions and the consensus from long-forgotten discussions, is pretty thankless work. I occasionally regard it as worthwhile if only to bring up something someone said as an inconvenient interruption in any current discussion, but that's a pretty minimal reward for all the effort unless one has such work as part of one's daily routine.
Paul
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:47:30 +0200 From: Larry Hastings <larry@hastings.org> To: python-dev@python.org, python-committers@python.org Subject: [Python-Dev] EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled. Message-ID: <4FF68A02.8000500@hastings.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
I only got one more RSVP and zero topics for the docket. So let's sprint instead.
See you at the PyCon 2013 Language Summit,
//arry/
Ryan Paullin
spoke too early on its done sorry On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Ryan Paullin <ryanpaullin@gmail.com> wrote:
thanks for the reply hastings ive been working on a loopback interface its done
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:00 AM, <python-dev-request@python.org> wrote:
Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to python-dev@python.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to python-dev-request@python.org
You can reach the person managing the list at python-dev-owner@python.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Python-Dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?) (martin@v.loewis.de) 2. Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (anatoly techtonik) 3. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Mark Lawrence) 4. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Stefan Behnel) 5. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Paul Boddie) 6. EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled. (Larry Hastings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:27:02 +0200 From: martin@v.loewis.de To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?) Message-ID: <20120705202702.Horde.Yh-RBqGZi1VP9dx2H7Nj-nA@webmail.df.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
You won't get any changes in to CPython by creating pull requests. We use http://bugs.python.org/ for that, sorry.
Question -- is there a reason to abide by this rule for docs? That is, if we could get a sympathetic core dev to look at pull requests for docs as part of a streamlined process, would it cause problems?
How do you communicate a "pull request"? On bitbucket, there is a "pull request" UI resulting in a tracker item being generated (and an email being sent), but hg.python.org doesn't have a notion of pull requests. Of course, you could use any communication means (email, telephone call, carrier pigeon) to request a pull from a "sympathetic core dev".
(What I'm really asking is whether or the bugs.python.org process is considered critical for potentially minor doc changes and additions.)
The sympathetic core dev is mostly free to bypass any submission process initially; commits that bypass established procedures will likely be questioned only after the fact.
In the specific case, I'd be worried to verify that the submitter has provided a contributor form. That's easy to do in the bug tracker, but difficult to do in an offline pull request. Of course, for a really minor doc change (e.g. typo fixes), no contrib form is necessary.
Regards, Martin
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:41:29 +0300 From: anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> To: Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> Cc: python-ideas@python.org, python-dev@python.org Subject: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <CAPkN8x+A-OYWNLNKDH= 6GnQn+o_Tb3LMnimHYs9zkYmWR1GTgA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> wrote: the
same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" for others to admire.
No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An "organic" way to keep traffic low.
Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to munch-munch on the sequence data).
Wheew. :-F
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:55:09 +0100 From: Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> To: python-dev@python.org Cc: python-ideas@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <jt4re5$3gs$1@dough.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> wrote:
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to
On 05/07/2012 20:41, anatoly techtonik wrote: the
same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" for others to admire.
No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An "organic" way to keep traffic low.
Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to munch-munch on the sequence data).
Wheew. :-F
Can I safely assume that you are volunteering to do the work required?
-- Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:58:52 +0200 From: Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> To: python-dev@python.org Cc: python-ideas@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <jt4rlt$45k$1@dough.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41: the
same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time?
Yes, that is exactly the question.
It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has pointed out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look it up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself, or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on others to do it for you?
Stefan
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:11:46 +0200 From: Paul Boddie <paul@boddie.org.uk> To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-ideas] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) Message-ID: <201207052311.46867.paul@boddie.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41:
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time?
Yes, that is exactly the question.
It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has
Stefan Behnel wrote: pointed
out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look it up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself, or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on others to do it for you?
To be fair, Anatoly has done quite a bit of maintenance on some of the Wiki content around various aspects of the project, so it's not as if he's demanding anything out of the ordinary or asking for others to do things that he isn't already doing in some sense. My experience is that there usually needs to be some willingness on the other end of the transaction, and if it takes repetition to encourage it amongst those who don't see the current situation as a problem for them, then so be it.
Of course, this kind of documentation activity, where one gathers together historical decisions and the consensus from long-forgotten discussions, is pretty thankless work. I occasionally regard it as worthwhile if only to bring up something someone said as an inconvenient interruption in any current discussion, but that's a pretty minimal reward for all the effort unless one has such work as part of one's daily routine.
Paul
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:47:30 +0200 From: Larry Hastings <larry@hastings.org> To: python-dev@python.org, python-committers@python.org Subject: [Python-Dev] EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled. Message-ID: <4FF68A02.8000500@hastings.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
I only got one more RSVP and zero topics for the docket. So let's sprint instead.
See you at the PyCon 2013 Language Summit,
//arry/
tags
participants (1)
-
Ryan Paullin