Proposed Python 3.0 schedule
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My suggestion: 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do we need two more betas? - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSOqxvnEjvBPtnXfVAQIR5QP/coSi2ltsZSpE2dyUg7Y35QcSk/+4ZbGK zF0AgLaOkGs+DFnxRH9vy9kN3JaEkp1MhEpDjkomE7kNpnJB7bWotTrHI67HD9ma ZDqqmaCc02IeUtLm7HuELvofjCgh+gryKWvRc71ErRHmn/YxMGr1OcEirPpx4nZ9 DeDV0OeUtTE= =RchU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
I'm not sure we do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "big ticket", issue bytes/unicode filepaths, has been resolved. And looking at the tracker, I only see 18 release blockers. -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's nothing quite as beautiful as an oboe... except a chicken stuck in a vacuum cleaner."
On Oct 6, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Well, if you mean that the resolution decided upon is to "simply" allow access to all system APIs using either byte or unicode strings, then it seems to me that there's a rather large amount of work left to do... Here's some I found from a few minutes of futzing around with r66821 of py3k on Linux. - Having os.getcwdb isn't much use when you can't even run python in the first place when the current directory has "bad" bytes in it. Currently Python outputs: Could not find platform independent libraries <prefix> Could not find platform dependent libraries <exec_prefix> Consider setting $PYTHONHOME to <prefix>[:<exec_prefix>] Fatal Python error: Py_Initialize: can't initialize sys standard streams ImportError: No module named encodings.utf_8 Aborted - I'd think "find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 python -c 'pass'" ought to work (with files with "bad" bytes being returned by find), which means that Python shouldn't blow up and refuse to start when there's a non-properly-encoding argv ("Could not convert argument 1 to string" and exiting isn't appropriate behavior). - Of course, just being able to start the interpreter isn't quite enough: you'll want to be able to access that argument list too, somehow (add sys.argvb?). - And then, getopt and optparse modules should work on bytestring vectors, so that you can use sys.argvb without writing your own argument parser. They don't currently. - There's no os.environb for bytewise access to the environment. Seems important. - Isn't it a potential security issue that " 'WHATEVER' in os.environ" can return False if WHATEVER had some "bad" bytes in it, but spawning a subprocess actually will include WHATEVER in the subprocess's environment? Actually, even better: the behavior depends on whether you use subprocess.call('foo') or subprocess.call('foo', os.environ). The first passes through the "bad" environment variables, while the second does not. A bit surprising, perhaps. - Shouldn't this work? subprocess.call(b'/bin/echo') Currently raises an exception: AttributeError: 'int' object has no attribute 'rfind' - I suppose sys.path should handle bytestrings on the path, and should be populated using the bytes-version of os.environ so that PYTHONPATH gets read in properly. Which of course implies that all the importers need to handle byte filenames. - zipfile.ZipFile(b'whatever.zip') doesn't work. - zipfile decodes/encodes the filenames inside the zip file to unicode, so thus can only handle correctly encoded filenames. I'm sure there's even more APIs dealing with pathnames, command line arguments, or environment variables that ought to be able to handle both bytes and strings, that currently don't. James
That's not true: it *is* of much use. Python will live in /usr/bin, which has a nicely-decodable path.
I can't reproduce that. This happens (for me) when Python lives in a directory that has an undecodable path - not when the current directory is undecodable.
Contributions are welcome. *Of course* can you access these files with POSIX API. However, Python's path handling can't. See above why I don't consider this as a serious bug, on Unix.
Perhaps. However, I don't see the need to be able to do so in Python 3.0.
And I hope they never will. Using bytes to represent this stuff will just bring back the 2.x status, so some other solution must be found - for 3.1 (or 3.2).
- There's no os.environb for bytewise access to the environment. Seems important.
Not to me. I don't have environment variables with non-ASCII characters in them, and I think few other people do.
Please, no. Regards, Martin
On Oct 7, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Sorry about that: this test was indeed in error: I ran "../python" from an undecodeable current directory, rather than "/full/path/to/ python", or putting python on the PATH and running it as "python". The first does not work, but the other more common ways to start it do.
I completely and totally agree with your distate, it's rather gross to allow bytes-or-str for every API that touches anything like filenames/ argv/environ. That's why I was pushing for the reversible conversion to str...But if bytes-or-str is the solution that's been chosen for this issue, it ought to either be fully committed to and implemented, or at least fully recognized and documented as a half-baked solution. Of course, if an reversible encoding into string solution is used instead, none of these things would need special treatment: they would all work already. FWIW: Qt works fine with undecodeable filenames, and it too uses unicode strings everywhere in its API. I looked into what it does, and found that it uses your (Martin)'s original idea for solving this: it stores undecodeable bytes as characters from 0x10fe00 to 0x10feff (which is valid private-use codespace). While that might not be ideally correct, since you lose those 256 PUA characters, even that is IMO better than pushing out bytes to every API, or worse, giving up and just having python unable to access files, as it is now. See lines 3074: QString::toUtf8() and 3408: QString::fromUtf8()) of http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=+show:o7fNK6SzOYs:NO-Bv-AR2rI:toIOngLf1V8&cs_p=http://ie.archive.ubuntu.com/trolltech/pub/qt/snapshots/qt-x11-opensource-src-4.4.0-snapshot-20070402.tar.bz2&cs_f=qt-x11-opensource-src-4.4.0-snapshot-20070402/src/corelib/tools/qstring.cpp James
James Y Knight wrote:
or at least fully recognized and documented as a half-baked solution.
I would prefer that, leaving a full resolution to 3.1 (or perhaps 3.2). If we wait long enough, the issue will disappear (a strategy that Sun is apparently taking for Java :-) Regards, Martin
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:51 AM, James Y Knight <foom@fuhm.net> wrote:
So what does Qt do when given a file name already using those PUA? Looks like they get passed through untouched when decoded, but will get translated into invalid names upon encoding. So you still have file names you can't open, and you're incompatible with what other libraries do. The only thing going for Qt is that they seem specifically interested in latin-1, rather than arbitrary bad names. The latin-1 strings that would correspond to the UTF-8 PUA used would include at least one control character, as well as other unusual bits, so it's pretty unlikely to encounter a real latin-1 file name like that. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Adam Olsen wrote:
Well, I'd say that looks like a bug. It should probably decode those PUA characters as if they were undecodeable sequences so that they too roundtrip properly.
So you still have file names you can't open
In practical terms, I suspect nobody has ever run into a file which has this problem. You certainly can't say that is the case for Python-3's current behavior; my suspicion is that anyone who uses any non-ascii filenames at all will run into issues with Python3's behavior at least once.
, and you're incompatible with what other libraries do.
I'm sure there's a situation where that matters, but, at least I can run kpdf /any/arbitrary/file.pdf and have it work. And use the KDE file chooser, and have it able to browse my files, and choose any file, no matter what random characters it has in it. If there is an issue with interfacing to another library, the string can be converted to whatever the other library expects at the interface point... People keep claiming that odd filenames are only going to be an issue for "backup tools", but I don't think that's true. I think it'll be an issue for most any program that reads user-specified files. Whether it be by running Python in an ASCII (e.g. "C") locale when there are files created with UTF-8 names, or by having copied/downloaded a file with an incorrectly encoded name, it's going to come up, and be an irritant when it does. That Qt felt the need to make this change rather strengthens that point IMO...
I'd say they're most concerned about files that their users are likely to run into, yes. James
Hi, First of all, please read my document: http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python3UnicodeDecodeError I moved the document to a public wiki to allow anyone to edit it! Le Tuesday 07 October 2008 05:22:09 James Y Knight, vous avez écrit :
Python3 now accepts bytes for os.listdir(), open() (io.open()), os.unlink(), os.path.*(), etc. But it's not enough to say that Python3 can use bytes everywhere. It would take months or *years* to fix all issues related to bytes and unicode. Remember, this task started in 2000 with Python *2.0* (creation of the unicode type).
If you know a problem, open a ticket and propose a solution. It's not possible to list all new problems since we don't know them yet :-)
- Having os.getcwdb isn't much use when you can't even run python in the first place when the current directory has "bad" bytes in it.
My python3.0 works correctly in a directory with an invalid name. What is your OS / locale / Python version? Please create a ticket if needed.
- I'd think "find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 python -c 'pass'" ought to work (with files with "bad" bytes being returned by find),
First, fix your home directory :-) There are good tools (convmv?) to fix invalid filenames.
Why not? It's a good idea to break compatibility to refuse invalid bytes sequences. You can still uses the command line, an input file or a GUI to read raw bytes sequences.
If we create sys.argvb, what shoul be done if sys.argv creation failed? sys.argv would be empty or unset? Or some values would be removed (and so argv[2] is argv[1])? I think that many (a lot of) programs suppose that sys.argv exists and "is valid". If you introduce a special case (sometimes, sys.argv doesn't exist or is truncated !?), it will introduce new issues.
- There's no os.environb for bytewise access to the environment. Seems important.
It would be strange if you can put a variable in bytes to os.environb whereas os.environ would not get the key. I know two major usages of the environment: (1) read a variable in Python (2) put a variable for a child process (1) can be done with os.getenv() and returns None if the variable (key or value) is an invalid bytes sequence. (2) can be done with subprocess.Popen(). subprocess doesn't support bytes yet but I wrote patches: #4035 and #4036.
Yes. Python should remove the key while creating os.environ.
- Shouldn't this work? subprocess.call(b'/bin/echo')
Yes. Most programs (at least on Linux and Mac) supports bytes and so you should be able use bytes arguments in their command lines, see issues #4035 and #4036.
If your file system is broken, rename your directory but don't introduce a special case for sys.path.
- zipfile.ZipFile(b'whatever.zip') doesn't work.
Since zipfile uses bytes in its file structure, zipfile should accept bytes. But the right question is: should this issue block Python3 or can we wait for Python 3.1 (maybe 3.0.1)? -- People wants to try the new Python version! Python3 introduces new amazing features like "keyword only arguments". The bytes/unicode problem is old and only affects broken systems Windows (90% of the computers in the world?) only uses characters for the filenames, environment and command line. Mac and Linux use UTF-8 most of the time, and slowly everything speaks UTF-8! Python3 should not be delayed because of this problem. About the initial barry's question: why Python3 is delayed until december? There are too much open issues? -- Victor Stinner aka haypo http://www.haypocalc.com/blog/
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:30 +0200, Victor Stinner wrote:
Fixing the home directory doesn't help in the long run because files with non-UTF-8 file names on a nominally UTF-8 system are not that exceptional, they crop up all over the place in non-ASCII countries. One can obtain them simply by copying stuff from a DVD someone else burned, by downloading a Japanese-released torrent, or by copying files from a shared hard drive.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but if python blows up at startup when unable to encode argv to Unicode, then how can you still use the command line to access the actual file name?
First of all, please read my document: http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python3UnicodeDecodeError
I have problems understanding that document. Is it supposed to be a PEP (i.e. a proposal to enhance Python), or is it a description of the status quo? If it is a PEP, it should clearly separate status quo, specification, and rationale (in any order that you find reasonable). It should also have an "open issues" section, explicitly listing the questions that haven't been resolved, and it should record objections to the proposal. I think I would object to the specification (perhaps to the degree of proposing a counter-PEP), but to do so, I first need a specification to object to. In terms of time-line, I think any such PEP is *clearly* out of scope for Python 3.0. All the remaining issues should deferred to 3.1. That the approach "we can use bytes in the file system API" was so rushed into the code base is already unfortunate, but I can understand the motivation - people want to write backup programs in Python. If I take the text as if it was a specification, here are some of my objections: - Default encoding: a) seems irrelevant for the PEP. The default encoding doesn't nearly have the role anymore that it had in 2.x, and shouldn't have any effect on how file names are treated. b) I would propose that the notion of a default encoding is entirely eliminated from Python, along with sys.(get|set)defaultencoding - argv and environ: are you suggesting that the behavior described in the PEP is desirable? I don't think it is (but I don't think it should change for 3.0, either, only for 3.1) Regards, Martin
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Fred Drake <fdrake@acm.org> wrote:
I expect that the only effect of this change would be that the filesystem encoding would become the de-facto default encoding for other contexts as well. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing... -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
On 2008-10-07 22:18, Fred Drake wrote:
As already mentioned in my reply to Viktor: +1. It's not adjustable anymore, so we might as well get rid off the sys module APIs. The term "default encoding" itself still has some value in that it is associated with the C API char* encoding used for PyUnicode objects in Python 3.0. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Oct 07 2008)
:::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,MacOSX for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
[Barry Warsaw]
Yes to both questions. I'm seeing that people are just starting to download and play with 3.0. I expect that we'll start getting more feedback on conversion issues, the C API, screwy interactions with operating systems, bytes/text issues, unanticipated interactions with other tools, etc. Each user will stress it in new ways and perhaps reveal a bunch of little integration issues and documentation issues. Those little fixups way go a long way toward establishing a good first impression and reputation for 3.0 from the outset. Raymond
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
I think that's contradictory :). If we need two betas, then 05-Nov becomes beta 5, 19-Nov is rc 2. If we don't need another rc then we can still do a final release on 03-Dec, otherwise we probably go 2 weeks later. I don't want to go much later than that though because then we get into the holiday season. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSOrFs3EjvBPtnXfVAQJceQP/QJN7oLM4nG+iXmgdb0NmKzOzaE3J89sQ UWZnc/hp618QNH4JWC8v2bYApFu+iVg3pcv1Lnmhuql6mOuDhSuKKJVA5jTdR7U2 2enhAEY2DXtmav/29nn2Fy6PYcWJy9pE2xBsbBW8qXc6tYww0iEBsz9SU68jPzPk x5LFC5NqmXo= =Kyr4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Do we need the full two weeks between rc's? Or is it too much of a pain to cut releases 3 weeks in a row? E.g. something like: 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0 beta 5 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 26-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 (if needed) 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final Cheers, Nick. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/ncoghlan%40gmail.com -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
Do we need the full two weeks between rc's?
If they are just other names for betas, yes. If they are true release candidates (in the sense of "we really want to release this as-is unless somebody tells us why this is a really bad idea"), then no.
Or is it too much of a pain to cut releases 3 weeks in a row?
It's a lot of effort, yes. Also for users, who will have barely installed one release candidate when the next one comes out. Regards, Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I won't be able to cut another release between the 15th and 5th, so at least that one should be 2 weeks. If we don't need the additional rc, then we can release early, which would put us just before the US Thanksgiving holiday. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSOvcQ3EjvBPtnXfVAQK5mwP9GQfw3zNvGhJWiSkZ2gQ1LNr0rnmfVmpF WcDePkz3e5nsOjtkwiN0rlYHIQE9ySPfvtqqrInBW8y97y79mTjiM4S32XHLyAsd WEWRb0ClcLuZs+JveAb8KF5pO0RlDgX9Dd6puuPr8kGa5aN/rosfsnXra1GrYpj3 JQghQ89JNkE= =+Ymq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Er, /3/ weeks between rc2 and rc3. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSOvf2HEjvBPtnXfVAQJDsQP8DRL2gQDMf1eEvgmmijPtVdbfAypZ1XMY huNzPu91v6dpvrogIP5MJbmJnSnka5yk78JIlkbTU4ZHS0ADsQX+IApU5y/SlO9Y FDtIqb+NFoVRFj5xQaN/EEqO8kNpq3WPmaEQJ4HHeDUIzcrbsPxfCm+vbePgnGzI AwhQqCzmX1I= =aQnH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2008/10/6 Raymond Hettinger <python@rcn.com>:
I agree with you here.
And maybe also here, but bounded. I don't want to keep deferring 3.0 months and months, I prefer to have a redesigned schedule now, and stick to it as much as possible, even if the 3.0 version is not as robust as we would want. Regards, -- . Facundo Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/ PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
[when 2 mailing lists are not enough... :-]
I'm seeing that people are just starting to download and play with 3.0. I expect that we'll start getting more feedback on conversion issues
+1 from this direction too. pywin32 has recently started looking seriously at py3k, and while things are in fairly good shape for us who are already "on the bandwagon", cleaning up a few rough edges would help people's first impressions - and as they say, you only get one chance at a good first impression... More specifically, I think 2to3 is shaping up well. pywin32 is taking the approach of "port where possible, but keep in py2x syntax and convert at 'setup.py' time" and this is working out fairly well (in fact, with just a couple of helpers in pywintypes, I think we can support python 2.3 upwards). I believe that many projects may well take a similar approach as it allows them to defer a full commitment to py3k, so doing all we can to support this might help with that first impression. My experience is that this could best be achieved by addressing the following issues before release: * Almost all open 2to3 issues that aren't truly edge cases should be resolved - if 2to3 doesn't work for people, they may be forced to (even temporarily) "fork" their project, which will cause concern. I'll note that good recent progress is being made here, but its still worth mentioning... * Better support for 2to3 in distutils (specifically, the support in build_py is stale, plus 'build_scripts' and 'install_data' should convert .py files to py3k syntax.) An 'example' project that uses py2k syntax and "just works" on py3k using this strategy might be useful here. * A standard 'helper script' that allows people to use py3k to execute a py2x syntax script by auto-converting the code. I've a 10ish-line script that uses lib2to3 plus exec() to achieve that result, but a helper in 2to3 for this would be nice. For a concrete use-case, we want to keep our distutils script in py2x syntax, but execute it via py3k. Its very possible this already exists and I've just missed it... Either way, I'm fairly confident a pywin32 build for py3k will be available in the next month or 2 (but as a result, I'm not really in a position to help with the above for that period...) Hopefully-helpfully, Mark
I can't say how glad I am that you say that. It supports lib2to3 being a proper library, despite the problems that this may cause in itself.
Please do create a bug report for that. It sounds like it's easy to fix.
An 'example' project that uses py2k syntax and "just works" on py3k using this strategy might be useful here.
Perhaps pywin32 :-? I don't think a demo project would do much good, as it doesn't exercise all the issues that may occur.
For the case of setup.py, I was hoping that it could be written in compatible syntax even without needing conversion. That worked fine for my Django port. Is that not the case for pywin32? This specific issue might be out of scope for 3.x, IMO.
But please do file bug reports, preferably along with any patches to distutils that you already have. Regards, Martin
Yeah, build_py is fairly easy to fix, but I also needed to extend the support to build_scripts and install_data. In addition, some already reported bugs in 2to3 mean that some files fail to convert, and this breaks the entire process - so as a result I ended up duplicating lib2to3's 'refactor_items()' but with exceptions being logged and ingored rather than aborting the process. Oh - and I deleted the .bak files (a copy of the sources are converted, not the sources themselves) Please see bugs 4072 and 4073 - but as mentioned below, the lack of a test case means I didn't supply a tested patch.
My idea was that the demo project would simply demonstrate the 2to3 concepts that such a project could use. pywin32 isn't a good example as it has a very non-trivial setup.py and a large set of C extensions (the demo I had in mind could avoid C extensions completely - C developers will already assume #ifdef will be their friend, but .py code is the unknown...) It would basically be a 'distutils demo', could have a single .py module and a single .py script. setup.py would support both 2.x and 3.x and would demonstrate how the source is converted to py3k syntax before it is installed into the py3k distribution. It would also provide a useful test case - eg, for the distutils bug above, I'm not sure how I can (a) demonstrate it is currently broken and (b) demonstrate a patch corrects the problem.
setup.py catches and examines some exceptions. Consider the more general case though - pywin32 has a number of tests all of which will also be maintained in py2x syntax. It is extremely convenient to be able to execute: % py3k run2.py my_test.py etc And have 'my_test.py' (which is 2.x syntax) be executed directly by py3k without doing a full 'setup.py install' or manually invoking 2to3 via a temp file, etc. As mentioned, 'run2.py' is quite short and just uses lib2to3+exec, but I'm not sure everyone will work out how to roll their own... Specifically, I believe that a script with similar capabilities could be installed with py3k in the "scripts" directory and it advertised as a reasonable way to directly execute your *scripts* which, although py3x compatible, are being maintained in py2x syntax. Below is my quick attempt at such a script, which I promptly stopped looking at as soon as it worked (ie, I'm not sure if all those options are needed, etc), but it does let me execute my tests using py3k directly from the source tree. Cheers, Mark --- # This is a Python 3.x script to execute a python 2.x script by 2to3'ing it. import sys from lib2to3.refactor import RefactoringTool, get_fixers_from_package fixers = get_fixers_from_package('lib2to3.fixes') options = dict(doctests_only=False, fix=[], list_fixes=[], print_function=False, verbose=False, write=True) r = RefactoringTool(fixers, options) script = sys.argv[1] data = open(script).read() print("Converting...") got = r.refactor_string(data, script) print("Executing...") # nuke ourselves from argv del sys.argv[1] exec(str(got)) ---
On 10/7/08, Mark Hammond <mhammond@skippinet.com.au> wrote:
Note that only the print_function option is used.
-- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's nothing quite as beautiful as an oboe... except a chicken stuck in a vacuum cleaner."
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
I know I'm contradicting what I said earlier, but perhaps we should just forget going back to beta and stick to ever-more-perfect release candidates? In other worlds release candidates often contain tons of imperfections (I believe I've seen this both for Java and Windows) and the label "release candidate" more clearly encourages people to download and play with it, which is what we need at this point! Then the schedule would be something like 15-Oct-2008 3.0 rc 2 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 4 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm okay with that too. It does seem odd to go back to beta then release another rc. What's in a name, anyway? <wink>. And it is good that more people are downloading it now that it's rc. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSOvb93EjvBPtnXfVAQJTQAP/cmNdzd/SRymxXvW85EnW2NTHUkh1Auw9 bGlbSC0BF2p9ArgbDLPh/X4uatB3UaqoNeq5LTWHL2f9iCnsI7lFMPuexGr+3t4l Xmld8qN77j4GpU6bXL8uUo3/vlhU4MiG5ETl0kMH30f47srOAAGEGZAqW9jAM92I YSkQPSgBdYo= =+s9t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've updated PEP 361 and the Google calendar with this schedule, except that the PEP says that rc3 and rc4 are planned "if needed". - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSOvfg3EjvBPtnXfVAQKDfwP/Sz9Ioe1tIrKtvD7JPG2cg2F+wfDJrc+9 vqfh6/eMWiUIOeSKJu6+gye7oXRcHwQXAPivNza3993HesOu0TjudnwXfkAlfsdE m09Rh70AXQQiY7JX46etugRC4BwkuNeBo253cvmfo6hPK0ZhOHZSy3H1LkhvvLA6 Cq56CVqDUgs= =i/Km -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (14)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Adam Olsen -
Barry Warsaw -
Benjamin Peterson -
Facundo Batista -
Fred Drake -
Guido van Rossum -
Hrvoje Nikšić -
James Y Knight -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Mark Hammond -
Nick Coghlan -
Raymond Hettinger -
Victor Stinner