From jcea at jcea.es  Mon Oct  1 04:29:31 2012
From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:29:31 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch created
 in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 29/09/12 10:35, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Until the last ordinary 3.2 bugfix release is done (which will be
> soon), the usual procedure for 3.x will be to check into 3.2, merge
> into 3.3, and then merge into default, except of course for a)
> fixes of 3.3-only features and b) trivial things like typos that
> you don't feel have to be in 3.2.4.
> 
> default is now Python 3.4, and new features can be committed
> there.

So, if I understand correctly, the current situation is this:

2.6: Security fixes only
2.7, 3.2, 3.3: Bugfixes only
2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0, 3.1: Dead

After 3.2.4 is published ("soon"), 3.2 would move to "security fixes
only". Am I right?

I wonder if we have a deadline for supporting 2.6 yet. How about 2.7?.

- -- 
Jes?s Cea Avi?n                         _/_/      _/_/_/        _/_/_/
jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/     _/_/    _/_/  _/_/    _/_/  _/_/
jabber / xmpp:jcea at 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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQCVAwUBUGkACplgi5GaxT1NAQKKCgP/Te1AZgjtr2YAg3fq5NmtOZhkL5KYfodt
xhFpTShdC7ELc/PpdAI67UdnpwL0PoceKpQ65Bidei/EUG9oJAuHiKdaCDPBzGDN
Z6r9eRwozMia8rT/7w2WiGH88LWHloimErQsLjeJTmymKOViRHjEeMOeYmyYclJd
LzGQJaEW20M=
=eX2O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From tjreedy at udel.edu  Mon Oct  1 04:44:17 2012
From: tjreedy at udel.edu (Terry Reedy)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:44:17 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
Message-ID: <50690381.7020703@udel.edu>



On 9/30/2012 10:29 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:

> So, if I understand correctly, the current situation is this:
>
> 2.6: Security fixes only
> 2.7, 3.2, 3.3: Bugfixes only
> 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0, 3.1: Dead
>
> After 3.2.4 is published ("soon"), 3.2 would move to "security fixes
> only". Am I right?
>
> I wonder if we have a deadline for supporting 2.6 yet. How about 2.7?.

Is there a PEP with end-of-life info?

From benjamin at python.org  Mon Oct  1 06:20:43 2012
From: benjamin at python.org (Benjamin Peterson)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 00:20:43 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
Message-ID: <CAPZV6o8fJhKpFRY2TvpArrDUDe9RJ+C1-WwJa8_cwiW7Q+MJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>

2012/9/30 Jesus Cea <jcea at jcea.es>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 29/09/12 10:35, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Until the last ordinary 3.2 bugfix release is done (which will be
>> soon), the usual procedure for 3.x will be to check into 3.2, merge
>> into 3.3, and then merge into default, except of course for a)
>> fixes of 3.3-only features and b) trivial things like typos that
>> you don't feel have to be in 3.2.4.
>>
>> default is now Python 3.4, and new features can be committed
>> there.
>
> So, if I understand correctly, the current situation is this:
>
> 2.6: Security fixes only
> 2.7, 3.2, 3.3: Bugfixes only
> 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0, 3.1: Dead

3.1 still recieves security fixes.

>
> After 3.2.4 is published ("soon"), 3.2 would move to "security fixes
> only". Am I right?
>
> I wonder if we have a deadline for supporting 2.6 yet. How about 2.7?.

2.7 will get at least 5 years of support.


-- 
Regards,
Benjamin

From g.brandl at gmx.net  Mon Oct  1 07:02:06 2012
From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:02:06 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
	created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
Message-ID: <k4b84c$6c0$1@ger.gmane.org>

On 10/01/2012 04:29 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 29/09/12 10:35, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Until the last ordinary 3.2 bugfix release is done (which will be
>> soon), the usual procedure for 3.x will be to check into 3.2, merge
>> into 3.3, and then merge into default, except of course for a)
>> fixes of 3.3-only features and b) trivial things like typos that
>> you don't feel have to be in 3.2.4.
>>
>> default is now Python 3.4, and new features can be committed
>> there.
>
> So, if I understand correctly, the current situation is this:
>
> 2.6: Security fixes only
> 2.7, 3.2, 3.3: Bugfixes only
> 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0, 3.1: Dead
>
> After 3.2.4 is published ("soon"), 3.2 would move to "security fixes
> only". Am I right?

Correct, except for 3.1 in the "security fixes" category.

You are right that we should have information about bugfix/security mode and
about end-of-life; I propose to put them in the respective release schedule
PEPs.

Georg


From martin at v.loewis.de  Mon Oct  1 13:30:24 2012
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:30:24 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <50690381.7020703@udel.edu>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu>
Message-ID: <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>

> Is there a PEP with end-of-life info?

I had meant to write a PEP on security releases for several
years now. Since this still doesn't exist, here is the outline
of the procedures that maintainers have agreed upon:
- bug fix releases are made until the next feature release is
   out (with 2.7 being an exception from that rule)
- security fixes are being provided until 5 years after the initial
   release of the feature release
   * for 2.6, this will be until Oct 1, 2013
   * for 3.1, this will be until July 27, 2014
   * for 3.2, this will be until Feb 20, 2016
   The 5 years horizon is based on requests of system packagers
   (Linux distributions in particular), who often also have 5-year
   cycles for long-term support.
- security releases are made whenever maintainers deem it necessary;
   the two options are
   * commit fixes into source repository only, and release whenever
     enough time has passed, or enough changes have accumulated, or
   * release right after a security issue has been resolved
   Which of these to take depends on the nature of the fix, of course.
   The former is intended for system packagers of Python - they can
   incorporate fixes that are official already despite not having been
   released yet.

I'm not aware of a formal policy for 2.7. I guess it will end its life
by BDFL pronouncement; giving it a 5 year bug fix period (which would
end on July 3, 2015) seems a bit long to me - I'd favor to stop bug
fixing along with the 3.4 release. The last BDFL decision (that I'm
aware of) is that 2.7 should be supported "indefinitely", which is
not "infinitely".

Regards,
Martin

From g.brandl at gmx.net  Mon Oct  1 14:23:13 2012
From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:23:13 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
	created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org>

On 10/01/2012 01:30 PM, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
>> Is there a PEP with end-of-life info?
>
> I had meant to write a PEP on security releases for several
> years now. Since this still doesn't exist, here is the outline
> of the procedures that maintainers have agreed upon:
> - bug fix releases are made until the next feature release is
>     out (with 2.7 being an exception from that rule)
> - security fixes are being provided until 5 years after the initial
>     release of the feature release
>     * for 2.6, this will be until Oct 1, 2013
>     * for 3.1, this will be until July 27, 2014
>     * for 3.2, this will be until Feb 20, 2016
>     The 5 years horizon is based on requests of system packagers
>     (Linux distributions in particular), who often also have 5-year
>     cycles for long-term support.
> - security releases are made whenever maintainers deem it necessary;
>     the two options are
>     * commit fixes into source repository only, and release whenever
>       enough time has passed, or enough changes have accumulated, or
>     * release right after a security issue has been resolved
>     Which of these to take depends on the nature of the fix, of course.
>     The former is intended for system packagers of Python - they can
>     incorporate fixes that are official already despite not having been
>     released yet.
>
> I'm not aware of a formal policy for 2.7. I guess it will end its life
> by BDFL pronouncement; giving it a 5 year bug fix period (which would
> end on July 3, 2015) seems a bit long to me - I'd favor to stop bug
> fixing along with the 3.4 release. The last BDFL decision (that I'm
> aware of) is that 2.7 should be supported "indefinitely", which is
> not "infinitely".

I've now added lifespan information to the 3.2 and 3.3 release schedule
PEPs, perhaps Barry and Benjamin could do the same for 2.6 to 3.1.

Georg


From solipsis at pitrou.net  Mon Oct  1 14:44:59 2012
From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:44:59 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu>  <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <1349095499.3443.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Le lundi 01 octobre 2012 ? 13:30 +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" a ?crit :
> I'm not aware of a formal policy for 2.7. I guess it will end its life
> by BDFL pronouncement; giving it a 5 year bug fix period (which would
> end on July 3, 2015) seems a bit long to me - I'd favor to stop bug
> fixing along with the 3.4 release.

"5 years" was once recorded in the 2.7 release page:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2010-April/573621.html

... although it isn't anymore:
?Python 2.7 is scheduled to be the last major version in the 2.x series
before it moves into an extended maintenance period.?
http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.7/

Benjamin is the 2.7 release manager (good choice on his part ;-)), and
on this thread he seems to be of the advice that 5 years is the number.

Perhaps we can relax the 2.7 bugfix policy a bit: bugfix releases are
made for 5 years, but core developers are free not to port minor
bugfixes if they want to save up some time.

Regards

Antoine.


-- 
Software development and contracting: http://pro.pitrou.net



From kbk at shore.net  Mon Oct  1 15:58:24 2012
From: kbk at shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:58:24 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] contributor forms (was Re: contributor form
 for Alexander Belopolsky)
In-Reply-To: <CAOTb1wfZ=Msw_kPwNAc2rowaaC1R8jLCuz48gDcXwoj--DOM=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOTb1wfZ=Msw_kPwNAc2rowaaC1R8jLCuz48gDcXwoj--DOM=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1349099904.10413.140661134965905.201F7FB1@webmail.messagingengine.com>

Unfortunately, the list of core developers with the form flag set
doesn't match the actual forms on file.  For example, I did not find my
form in the files sent to me by the previous Administrator.

I'm currently in the process of having all the forms scanned.  I'll then
check them into the PSF repository, along with the ones received by fax
over the past couple of years.

Once that's done, we can address any missing forms.

KBK

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012, Jes?s Cea Avi?n wrote:
> >
> > Alexander Belopolsky is a core developer but the bugtracker doesn't [edit: but now does]
> > have a "contributor form received" flag for him?
> 
> FWIW, you can see a list of all such core developers using this URL:
> 
> http://bugs.python.org/user?iscommitter=1&contrib_form=0&@action=search&@sort=username&@pagesize=300
> 
> There are currently 35 without a contributor form (though I realize
> that many of them may not currently be active).
> 
> --Chris
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> 

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct  1 16:36:57 2012
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:36:57 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
	<k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <20121001103657.6ff9a8e1@limelight.wooz.org>

On Oct 01, 2012, at 02:23 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:

>I've now added lifespan information to the 3.2 and 3.3 release schedule
>PEPs, perhaps Barry and Benjamin could do the same for 2.6 to 3.1.

Done for PEP 361, which actually covers both the 2.6 and 3.0 releases.  I've
described Python 3.0 as not being maintained for any purpose.

Cheers,
-Barry


From barry at python.org  Mon Oct  1 16:39:35 2012
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:39:35 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <20121001103935.419f1d83@limelight.wooz.org>

On Oct 01, 2012, at 01:30 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote:

>I had meant to write a PEP on security releases for several
>years now.

+1

>Since this still doesn't exist, here is the outline
>of the procedures that maintainers have agreed upon:
>- bug fix releases are made until the next feature release is
>   out (with 2.7 being an exception from that rule)
>- security fixes are being provided until 5 years after the initial
>   release of the feature release
>   * for 2.6, this will be until Oct 1, 2013
>   * for 3.1, this will be until July 27, 2014
>   * for 3.2, this will be until Feb 20, 2016
>   The 5 years horizon is based on requests of system packagers
>   (Linux distributions in particular), who often also have 5-year
>   cycles for long-term support.
>- security releases are made whenever maintainers deem it necessary;
>   the two options are
>   * commit fixes into source repository only, and release whenever
>     enough time has passed, or enough changes have accumulated, or
>   * release right after a security issue has been resolved
>   Which of these to take depends on the nature of the fix, of course.
>   The former is intended for system packagers of Python - they can
>   incorporate fixes that are official already despite not having been
>   released yet.

The only thing missing is whether releases are made source-only or with binary
packages for Windows and Mac.  My understanding is that once a release goes
into security-only mode, binary releases cease.

Cheers,
-Barry

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct  1 16:42:50 2012
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:42:50 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <1349095499.3443.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
	<1349095499.3443.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20121001104250.5d3e5a55@limelight.wooz.org>

On Oct 01, 2012, at 02:44 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

>"5 years" was once recorded in the 2.7 release page:
>http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2010-April/573621.html
>
>... although it isn't anymore:
>?Python 2.7 is scheduled to be the last major version in the 2.x series
>before it moves into an extended maintenance period.?
>http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.7/
>
>Benjamin is the 2.7 release manager (good choice on his part ;-)), and
>on this thread he seems to be of the advice that 5 years is the number.
>
>Perhaps we can relax the 2.7 bugfix policy a bit: bugfix releases are
>made for 5 years, but core developers are free not to port minor
>bugfixes if they want to save up some time.

I think we should make a formal commitment to 2.7's lifespan, whatever that
would be.  When discussions about Python 2's ultimate demise come up, we
should be able to point to the PEP for the official declaration, since once
Python 2.7 maintenance ends, so does effectively Python 2's lifespan.

the-champagne-is-cooling-as-we-speak-ly y'rs,
-Barry

From tjreedy at udel.edu  Mon Oct  1 17:03:23 2012
From: tjreedy at udel.edu (Terry Reedy)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:03:23 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
	<k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <5069B0BB.7030504@udel.edu>

On 10/1/2012 8:23 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 01:30 PM, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
>>> Is there a PEP with end-of-life info?
>>
>> I had meant to write a PEP on security releases for several
>> years now. Since this still doesn't exist, here is the outline
>> of the procedures that maintainers have agreed upon:
>> - bug fix releases are made until the next feature release is
>>     out (with 2.7 being an exception from that rule)
>> - security fixes are being provided until 5 years after the initial
>>     release of the feature release
>>     * for 2.6, this will be until Oct 1, 2013
>>     * for 3.1, this will be until July 27, 2014
>>     * for 3.2, this will be until Feb 20, 2016
>>     The 5 years horizon is based on requests of system packagers
>>     (Linux distributions in particular), who often also have 5-year
>>     cycles for long-term support.
>> - security releases are made whenever maintainers deem it necessary;
>>     the two options are
>>     * commit fixes into source repository only, and release whenever
>>       enough time has passed, or enough changes have accumulated, or
>>     * release right after a security issue has been resolved
>>     Which of these to take depends on the nature of the fix, of course.
>>     The former is intended for system packagers of Python - they can
>>     incorporate fixes that are official already despite not having been
>>     released yet.
>>
>> I'm not aware of a formal policy for 2.7. I guess it will end its life
>> by BDFL pronouncement; giving it a 5 year bug fix period (which would
>> end on July 3, 2015) seems a bit long to me - I'd favor to stop bug
>> fixing along with the 3.4 release. The last BDFL decision (that I'm
>> aware of) is that 2.7 should be supported "indefinitely", which is
>> not "infinitely".
>
> I've now added lifespan information to the 3.2 and 3.3 release schedule
> PEPs, perhaps Barry and Benjamin could do the same for 2.6 to 3.1.

Someone recently said they could not find life-cycle information on 
python.org. I think it would be good to have one PEP or website page 
that has the general policy, given above by Martin, the exception for 
2.7, and a summary table with one line per release (back to say, 2.5), 
giving number and date for

Initial release      Last bug fix release      Last security release
...
3.3.0  2012 Sep 30   (2014 ???)                (2017 Sep)

(tentative dates in parens)

Terry


From tjreedy at udel.edu  Mon Oct  1 16:57:45 2012
From: tjreedy at udel.edu (Terry Reedy)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:57:45 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] 3.3.1 two months away?
In-Reply-To: <k4b84c$6c0$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<k4b84c$6c0$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <5069AF69.1000605@udel.edu>

On 10/1/2012 1:02 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:

> You are right that we should have information about bugfix/security mode
> and
> about end-of-life; I propose to put them in the respective release schedule
> PEPs.

 From the commit:

 > +3.3 will receive bugfix updates approximately every 4-6 months until

 > +3.3.1 schedule
 > +--------------
 > +
 > +- 3.3.1 beta 1: planned for Oct/Nov 2012

I presume you see a number of little fixes coming that should not too 
long. I almost missed this ;-).

Terry


From rdmurray at bitdance.com  Mon Oct  1 18:13:35 2012
From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:13:35 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] 3.3.1 two months away?
In-Reply-To: <5069AF69.1000605@udel.edu>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<k4b84c$6c0$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069AF69.1000605@udel.edu>
Message-ID: <20121001161336.3CD162500FA@webabinitio.net>

On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:57:45 -0400, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 1:02 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> 
> > You are right that we should have information about bugfix/security mode
> > and
> > about end-of-life; I propose to put them in the respective release schedule
> > PEPs.
> 
>  From the commit:
> 
>  > +3.3 will receive bugfix updates approximately every 4-6 months until
> 
>  > +3.3.1 schedule
>  > +--------------
>  > +
>  > +- 3.3.1 beta 1: planned for Oct/Nov 2012
> 
> I presume you see a number of little fixes coming that should not too 
> long. I almost missed this ;-).

I believe Georg is basing this on past experience, both ours and the
general software community...the users *always* find nasty bugs only
after the first production release :)

I have some hope we did a little better this time, though.  Judging by
the bug reports we got a bunch of pre-testing from both the Gentoo team
and Ubuntu, and I'm pretty sure their testing has been more extensive
this time than it was for previous 3.x releases.

On the other hand, Gentoo (Arfrever) already found one crasher
post-release...but fortunately it only happens in debug builds (although
that could mean there is a behavior bug in non-debug builds).

--David

From g.brandl at gmx.net  Mon Oct  1 18:37:02 2012
From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:37:02 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] 3.3.1 two months away?
In-Reply-To: <5069AF69.1000605@udel.edu>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<k4b84c$6c0$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069AF69.1000605@udel.edu>
Message-ID: <k4cgrc$3hu$1@ger.gmane.org>

On 10/01/2012 04:57 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 1:02 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
>> You are right that we should have information about bugfix/security mode
>> and
>> about end-of-life; I propose to put them in the respective release schedule
>> PEPs.
>
>   From the commit:
>
>   > +3.3 will receive bugfix updates approximately every 4-6 months until
>
>   > +3.3.1 schedule
>   > +--------------
>   > +
>   > +- 3.3.1 beta 1: planned for Oct/Nov 2012
>
> I presume you see a number of little fixes coming that should not too
> long. I almost missed this ;-).

No, in fact we have a security fix in the pipeline; the point releases for
all branches will come out when the respective patch is finished.

That we can quickly fix not-so-critical but annoying bugs found by users
in 3.3.0 is a nice side-effect.

cheers,
Georg


From benjamin at python.org  Mon Oct  1 19:30:40 2012
From: benjamin at python.org (Benjamin Peterson)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:30:40 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] 3.3.1 two months away?
In-Reply-To: <20121001161336.3CD162500FA@webabinitio.net>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<k4b84c$6c0$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069AF69.1000605@udel.edu>
	<20121001161336.3CD162500FA@webabinitio.net>
Message-ID: <CAPZV6o9mLND_HwXWy=OmSvGKD4ev0JP895ix-a5dhv5x-OunVA@mail.gmail.com>

2012/10/1 R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com>:
> On the other hand, Gentoo (Arfrever) already found one crasher
> post-release...but fortunately it only happens in debug builds (although
> that could mean there is a behavior bug in non-debug builds).

It definitely happens in release builds.


-- 
Regards,
Benjamin

From g.brandl at gmx.net  Mon Oct  1 19:42:17 2012
From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:42:17 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] 3.3.1 two months away?
In-Reply-To: <CAPZV6o9mLND_HwXWy=OmSvGKD4ev0JP895ix-a5dhv5x-OunVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<k4b84c$6c0$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069AF69.1000605@udel.edu>
	<20121001161336.3CD162500FA@webabinitio.net>
	<CAPZV6o9mLND_HwXWy=OmSvGKD4ev0JP895ix-a5dhv5x-OunVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <k4cklo$7u5$2@ger.gmane.org>

On 10/01/2012 07:30 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2012/10/1 R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com>:
>> On the other hand, Gentoo (Arfrever) already found one crasher
>> post-release...but fortunately it only happens in debug builds (although
>> that could mean there is a behavior bug in non-debug builds).
>
> It definitely happens in release builds.

I guess you're talking about the *second* crasher :|

Georg


From benjamin at python.org  Mon Oct  1 19:50:59 2012
From: benjamin at python.org (Benjamin Peterson)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:50:59 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
	<k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <CAPZV6o8N=4CJXB-E01SrSJcAgZ8LYAHeFpaayMGB4F8g542KGw@mail.gmail.com>

2012/10/1 Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net>:
> I've now added lifespan information to the 3.2 and 3.3 release schedule
> PEPs, perhaps Barry and Benjamin could do the same for 2.6 to 3.1.

I just updated the 3.1 and 2.7 schedules.


-- 
Regards,
Benjamin

From jcea at jcea.es  Tue Oct  2 01:41:25 2012
From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 01:41:25 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
	<k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <506A2A25.8080103@jcea.es>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/10/12 14:23, Georg Brandl wrote:
> I've now added lifespan information to the 3.2 and 3.3 release 
> schedule PEPs, perhaps Barry and Benjamin could do the same for
> 2.6 to 3.1.

http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-0398/

"""
3.3 Lifespan

3.3 will receive bugfix updates approximately every 4-6 months until
one release after the release of 3.4.0 final. After that, security
updates (source only) will be released until 5 years after the release
of 3.3.0 final, which will be September 2017.
"""

I am not a native english speaker, but I guess the intention is to do
a final bugfix release for 3.3 after 3.4.0 is out, before moving 3.3
to "security fixes only". Could you possibly clarify the wording in
the PEP?.

Sorry if I am being a pain :).

- -- 
Jes?s Cea Avi?n                         _/_/      _/_/_/        _/_/_/
jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/     _/_/    _/_/  _/_/    _/_/  _/_/
jabber / xmpp:jcea at 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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQCVAwUBUGoqJZlgi5GaxT1NAQKYkwP/VLbum1YCj6aTxPQdFUMem+M6J/s/RcBD
89xYq9Ll5B1km2P+xDJqf4P6HnLObtOr9jflWui4LwLVt3uOzCb77f8jUQ9/7IVR
AU6QwhIgcmPnlxZgROSXUHvJ3abgXtK6tqyniGxQRs9s1Ao6At5wniZnDYChvfrV
KQA4+uq7u/o=
=/11g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From rdmurray at bitdance.com  Tue Oct  2 02:25:11 2012
From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:25:11 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
	created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <506A2A25.8080103@jcea.es>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
	<k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org> <506A2A25.8080103@jcea.es>
Message-ID: <20121002002512.425F92500FB@webabinitio.net>

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 01:41:25 +0200, Jesus Cea <jcea at jcea.es> wrote:
> On 01/10/12 14:23, Georg Brandl wrote:
> > I've now added lifespan information to the 3.2 and 3.3 release 
> > schedule PEPs, perhaps Barry and Benjamin could do the same for
> > 2.6 to 3.1.
> 
> http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-0398/
> 
> """
> 3.3 Lifespan
> 
> 3.3 will receive bugfix updates approximately every 4-6 months until
> one release after the release of 3.4.0 final. After that, security
> updates (source only) will be released until 5 years after the release
> of 3.3.0 final, which will be September 2017.
> """
> 
> I am not a native english speaker, but I guess the intention is to do
> a final bugfix release for 3.3 after 3.4.0 is out, before moving 3.3
> to "security fixes only". Could you possibly clarify the wording in
> the PEP?.

As a native English speaker it is not immediately obvious to me how
to make that clearer.  Is it that the antecedent of "one release" isn't
clear?

--David

From jcea at jcea.es  Tue Oct  2 02:37:10 2012
From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 02:37:10 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <20121002002512.425F92500FB@webabinitio.net>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
	<k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org> <506A2A25.8080103@jcea.es>
	<20121002002512.425F92500FB@webabinitio.net>
Message-ID: <506A3736.7050703@jcea.es>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/10/12 02:25, R. David Murray wrote:
>> 3.3 will receive bugfix updates approximately every 4-6 months
>> until one release after the release of 3.4.0 final. After that,
>> security
[...]

> As a native English speaker it is not immediately obvious to me
> how to make that clearer.  Is it that the antecedent of "one
> release" isn't clear?

I naivelly interpret "until one release after the release of 3.4.0" as
talking about doing another 3.4 release. I find it ambiguous about
what branch we are talking about.

Maybe something in the line of "the last bugfix release of 3.3 will be
done after 3.4.0 is published". Or "After 3.4.0 is released, we will
release a final bugfix release of 3.3".

- -- 
Jes?s Cea Avi?n                         _/_/      _/_/_/        _/_/_/
jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/     _/_/    _/_/  _/_/    _/_/  _/_/
jabber / xmpp:jcea at 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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQCVAwUBUGo3Nplgi5GaxT1NAQLl+AP/b3WMlDD6StHE9QCya5GTdz6pukBCXXf+
y+c9/lXVI+6ORFX0z+cp9DwOX9PhHP47JDJaryog/s7tAhQQ9/eCrvjM3iaXRwtM
hPby1nZNfnXU54vyGKvNJCrMHSYw70vOyV3hhCOGDgBz7OsF7C3dXGTLEoPBUEz+
OSmrFcYhADU=
=3CrX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From g.brandl at gmx.net  Tue Oct  2 08:26:58 2012
From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:26:58 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
	created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <506A3736.7050703@jcea.es>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
	<k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org> <506A2A25.8080103@jcea.es>
	<20121002002512.425F92500FB@webabinitio.net>
	<506A3736.7050703@jcea.es>
Message-ID: <k4e1fh$a7l$1@ger.gmane.org>

On 10/02/2012 02:37 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/10/12 02:25, R. David Murray wrote:
>>> 3.3 will receive bugfix updates approximately every 4-6 months
>>> until one release after the release of 3.4.0 final. After that,
>>> security
> [...]
>
>> As a native English speaker it is not immediately obvious to me
>> how to make that clearer.  Is it that the antecedent of "one
>> release" isn't clear?
>
> I naivelly interpret "until one release after the release of 3.4.0" as
> talking about doing another 3.4 release. I find it ambiguous about
> what branch we are talking about.
>
> Maybe something in the line of "the last bugfix release of 3.3 will be
> done after 3.4.0 is published". Or "After 3.4.0 is released, we will
> release a final bugfix release of 3.3".

I've tried to reword it now.

Georg


From tjreedy at udel.edu  Tue Oct  2 08:49:36 2012
From: tjreedy at udel.edu (Terry Reedy)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 02:49:36 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <506A3736.7050703@jcea.es>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<50690381.7020703@udel.edu> <50697ED0.9000300@v.loewis.de>
	<k4c1vg$nml$1@ger.gmane.org> <506A2A25.8080103@jcea.es>
	<20121002002512.425F92500FB@webabinitio.net> <506A3736.7050703@jcea.es>
Message-ID: <506A8E80.2070704@udel.edu>



On 10/1/2012 8:37 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/10/12 02:25, R. David Murray wrote:
>>> 3.3 will receive bugfix updates approximately every 4-6 months
>>> until one release after the release of 3.4.0 final.

This is a bit weird, as it can be read as implying after 3.4.1.

> I naivelly interpret "until one release after the release of 3.4.0" as
> talking about doing another 3.4 release. I find it ambiguous about
> what branch we are talking about.
>
> Maybe something in the line of "the last bugfix release of 3.3 will be
> done after 3.4.0 is published". Or "After 3.4.0 is released, we will
> release a final bugfix release of 3.3".

3.3 will receive bugfix updates approximately every 4-6 months until the 
final bugfix release soon after the release of 3.4.0.

Is that clearer?

tjr


From victor.stinner at gmail.com  Tue Oct  2 11:47:49 2012
From: victor.stinner at gmail.com (Victor Stinner)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 11:47:49 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
Message-ID: <CAMpsgwYyMfyJ=taabxRiY8YVVEaMutnFMhd6hR6LUWy2ANesGA@mail.gmail.com>

> So, if I understand correctly, the current situation is this:
>
> 2.6: Security fixes only
> 2.7, 3.2, 3.3: Bugfixes only
> 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0, 3.1: Dead

Would it be possible to write this status in the devguide (and also
maintain it!)?

Victor

From martin at v.loewis.de  Tue Oct  2 14:23:30 2012
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:23:30 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
 created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <CAMpsgwYyMfyJ=taabxRiY8YVVEaMutnFMhd6hR6LUWy2ANesGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<CAMpsgwYyMfyJ=taabxRiY8YVVEaMutnFMhd6hR6LUWy2ANesGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <506ADCC2.3060207@v.loewis.de>

Am 02.10.12 11:47, schrieb Victor Stinner:
>> So, if I understand correctly, the current situation is this:
>>
>> 2.6: Security fixes only
>> 2.7, 3.2, 3.3: Bugfixes only
>> 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0, 3.1: Dead
>
> Would it be possible to write this status in the devguide (and also
> maintain it!)?

Putting it there is surely possible. Keeping it maintained is absolutely
impossible, if you expect an update to happen as part of the release
process. The release process is already complex enough, so there 
shouldn't be any additional steps in the release process.

Instead, having people point out inconsistencies and them somebody
fixing them is something that could work.

Regards,
Martin


From g.brandl at gmx.net  Tue Oct  2 17:13:17 2012
From: g.brandl at gmx.net (Georg Brandl)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:13:17 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Branches support status (Re: 3.3 branch
	created in main repository)
In-Reply-To: <CAMpsgwYyMfyJ=taabxRiY8YVVEaMutnFMhd6hR6LUWy2ANesGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <k46bsh$cfm$1@ger.gmane.org> <5069000B.50306@jcea.es>
	<CAMpsgwYyMfyJ=taabxRiY8YVVEaMutnFMhd6hR6LUWy2ANesGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <k4f0ac$ngq$1@ger.gmane.org>

On 10/02/2012 11:47 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> So, if I understand correctly, the current situation is this:
>>
>> 2.6: Security fixes only
>> 2.7, 3.2, 3.3: Bugfixes only
>> 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0, 3.1: Dead
>
> Would it be possible to write this status in the devguide (and also
> maintain it!)?

I would support putting links to the release schedule PEPs in the
devguide somewhere.

Georg


From chris.jerdonek at gmail.com  Wed Oct 10 09:30:31 2012
From: chris.jerdonek at gmail.com (Chris Jerdonek)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:30:31 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] custom/sandbox repositories
Message-ID: <CAOTb1wfhY-xeq51bJ-VQXZnz6nv5-EFrF+nnzgTf1MUdV9yXpA@mail.gmail.com>

Antoine pointed out to me the possibility of using a custom repository
for testing purposes:

http://docs.python.org/devguide/buildbots.html#custom-builders

Is the standard procedure for a developer to create and use their own
sandbox repository under http://hg.python.org/sandbox/?  Or should we
use an existing sandbox repository (e.g. perhaps by creating a new
head so as to decrease inteference)?  Is the sandbox repository
something we can create on our own, or do we need to request it?

--Chris

From ncoghlan at gmail.com  Wed Oct 10 10:51:15 2012
From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:21:15 +0530
Subject: [python-committers] custom/sandbox repositories
In-Reply-To: <CAOTb1wfhY-xeq51bJ-VQXZnz6nv5-EFrF+nnzgTf1MUdV9yXpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOTb1wfhY-xeq51bJ-VQXZnz6nv5-EFrF+nnzgTf1MUdV9yXpA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADiSq7cuLm=rebJBo6JQ6CJep5UcFu5xTuCAYGQ=MSu8tqxB0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Chris Jerdonek
<chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
> Antoine pointed out to me the possibility of using a custom repository
> for testing purposes:
>
> http://docs.python.org/devguide/buildbots.html#custom-builders
>
> Is the standard procedure for a developer to create and use their own
> sandbox repository under http://hg.python.org/sandbox/?  Or should we
> use an existing sandbox repository (e.g. perhaps by creating a new
> head so as to decrease inteference)?

Create our own sandbox. I actually keep my sandbox on Bitbucket, but I
still have one on hg.python.org as well in case I want to try
something out on the buildbots.

For collaboration on particular features, a feature clone under
/features can be a good idea.

> Is the sandbox repository
> something we can create on our own, or do we need to request it?

You can just use the "server-side clone" link when looking at
http://hg.python.org/cpython/

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

From chris.jerdonek at gmail.com  Sun Oct 14 07:15:35 2012
From: chris.jerdonek at gmail.com (Chris Jerdonek)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:15:35 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] custom/sandbox repositories
In-Reply-To: <CADiSq7cuLm=rebJBo6JQ6CJep5UcFu5xTuCAYGQ=MSu8tqxB0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOTb1wfhY-xeq51bJ-VQXZnz6nv5-EFrF+nnzgTf1MUdV9yXpA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADiSq7cuLm=rebJBo6JQ6CJep5UcFu5xTuCAYGQ=MSu8tqxB0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOTb1wdXV1MPMXDjvNLge+XUQpTfbEvg07ZRWd8Kyqez3vj6zA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Chris Jerdonek
> <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is the sandbox repository
>> something we can create on our own, or do we need to request it?
>
> You can just use the "server-side clone" link when looking at
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/

Am I right that the server-side clone feature isn't documented in the
devguide?  Also, is it okay to specify a three-level name for the
"target repo name" like "sandbox/cjerdonek/cpython"?

--Chris

From nad at acm.org  Sun Oct 14 07:28:43 2012
From: nad at acm.org (Ned Deily)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:28:43 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] custom/sandbox repositories
References: <CAOTb1wfhY-xeq51bJ-VQXZnz6nv5-EFrF+nnzgTf1MUdV9yXpA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADiSq7cuLm=rebJBo6JQ6CJep5UcFu5xTuCAYGQ=MSu8tqxB0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTb1wdXV1MPMXDjvNLge+XUQpTfbEvg07ZRWd8Kyqez3vj6zA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <nad-5B1D6C.22284313102012@news.gmane.org>

In article 
<CAOTb1wdXV1MPMXDjvNLge+XUQpTfbEvg07ZRWd8Kyqez3vj6zA at mail.gmail.com>,
 Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Chris Jerdonek
> > <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is the sandbox repository
> >> something we can create on our own, or do we need to request it?
> >
> > You can just use the "server-side clone" link when looking at
> > http://hg.python.org/cpython/
> 
> Am I right that the server-side clone feature isn't documented in the
> devguide?  Also, is it okay to specify a three-level name for the
> "target repo name" like "sandbox/cjerdonek/cpython"?

http://docs.python.org/devguide/committing.html#long-term-development-of-
features

-- 
 Ned Deily,
 nad at acm.org


From chris.jerdonek at gmail.com  Sun Oct 14 07:33:22 2012
From: chris.jerdonek at gmail.com (Chris Jerdonek)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:33:22 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] custom/sandbox repositories
In-Reply-To: <nad-5B1D6C.22284313102012@news.gmane.org>
References: <CAOTb1wfhY-xeq51bJ-VQXZnz6nv5-EFrF+nnzgTf1MUdV9yXpA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADiSq7cuLm=rebJBo6JQ6CJep5UcFu5xTuCAYGQ=MSu8tqxB0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTb1wdXV1MPMXDjvNLge+XUQpTfbEvg07ZRWd8Kyqez3vj6zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<nad-5B1D6C.22284313102012@news.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <CAOTb1wdKcqFdxjXsYNYe7oayYjL=tVb_uTqFuvy8C22-_h6RBA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Ned Deily <nad at acm.org> wrote:
> In article
> <CAOTb1wdXV1MPMXDjvNLge+XUQpTfbEvg07ZRWd8Kyqez3vj6zA at mail.gmail.com>,
>  Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Chris Jerdonek
>> > <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Is the sandbox repository
>> >> something we can create on our own, or do we need to request it?
>> >
>> > You can just use the "server-side clone" link when looking at
>> > http://hg.python.org/cpython/
>>
>> Am I right that the server-side clone feature isn't documented in the
>> devguide?  Also, is it okay to specify a three-level name for the
>> "target repo name" like "sandbox/cjerdonek/cpython"?
>
> http://docs.python.org/devguide/committing.html#long-term-development-of-
> features

Thanks.  It's odd that searching neither for "clone" nor "server-side"
pulls that up (using the guide's "Quick Search" box).

--Chris

From chris.jerdonek at gmail.com  Sun Oct 14 08:50:47 2012
From: chris.jerdonek at gmail.com (Chris Jerdonek)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:50:47 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] custom/sandbox repositories
In-Reply-To: <CAOTb1wdXV1MPMXDjvNLge+XUQpTfbEvg07ZRWd8Kyqez3vj6zA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOTb1wfhY-xeq51bJ-VQXZnz6nv5-EFrF+nnzgTf1MUdV9yXpA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADiSq7cuLm=rebJBo6JQ6CJep5UcFu5xTuCAYGQ=MSu8tqxB0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTb1wdXV1MPMXDjvNLge+XUQpTfbEvg07ZRWd8Kyqez3vj6zA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOTb1weCn+X7SjRh3=_VjRSEVWwcXz=1xOUC872wh+DHvjwtxQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Chris Jerdonek
<chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Chris Jerdonek
>> <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is the sandbox repository
>>> something we can create on our own, or do we need to request it?
>>
>> You can just use the "server-side clone" link when looking at
>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/
>
> Am I right that the server-side clone feature isn't documented in the
> devguide?  Also, is it okay to specify a three-level name for the
> "target repo name" like "sandbox/cjerdonek/cpython"?

To answer my own question, the answer is no. :)

    'Please use a secondary level path such as "sandbox/cpython"'

--Chris

From eliben at gmail.com  Tue Oct 16 15:32:41 2012
From: eliben at gmail.com (Eli Bendersky)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:32:41 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] Googler Python committers
Message-ID: <CAF-Rda9dnop_d_nNJ6u6iykwi0H5XXk7SwfqG9e_355YJMvotg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I had the privilege of joining Google's Mountain View office yesterday, and
was wondering who else from the core development team works there, or in
Google in general (in addition to Guido, of course). It could be great to
meet for lunch now and then and discuss issues of common interest.

Eli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20121016/f06a2c74/attachment.html>

From chris.jerdonek at gmail.com  Tue Oct 16 16:44:36 2012
From: chris.jerdonek at gmail.com (Chris Jerdonek)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:44:36 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] Googler Python committers
In-Reply-To: <CAF-Rda9dnop_d_nNJ6u6iykwi0H5XXk7SwfqG9e_355YJMvotg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF-Rda9dnop_d_nNJ6u6iykwi0H5XXk7SwfqG9e_355YJMvotg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOTb1weF=Vg=Z+XGHtWs-ZRfBVxDr2Xbx9oy6DDpwvh4Q_F9TA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had the privilege of joining Google's Mountain View office yesterday, and
> was wondering who else from the core development team works there, or in
> Google in general (in addition to Guido, of course).

Congrats, Eli!  This may not be complete or accurate, but (and this
tip can be useful to everybody), the list of committers here has a
column that in some cases shows a company.  Several people from Google
are listed:

http://bugs.python.org/user?iscommitter=1&@action=search&@sort=username&@pagesize=300

(IIRC, you need to be logged in to the tracker to see the page.)

--Chris

From greg at krypto.org  Tue Oct 16 19:11:39 2012
From: greg at krypto.org (Gregory P. Smith)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:11:39 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] Googler Python committers
In-Reply-To: <CAOTb1weF=Vg=Z+XGHtWs-ZRfBVxDr2Xbx9oy6DDpwvh4Q_F9TA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF-Rda9dnop_d_nNJ6u6iykwi0H5XXk7SwfqG9e_355YJMvotg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTb1weF=Vg=Z+XGHtWs-ZRfBVxDr2Xbx9oy6DDpwvh4Q_F9TA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGE7PNLnkfRQz0eAqT2VMLTJ+HQYkmD0HQFQ1hdT63FM0Y8--w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I had the privilege of joining Google's Mountain View office yesterday,
> and
> > was wondering who else from the core development team works there, or in
> > Google in general (in addition to Guido, of course).
>
> Congrats, Eli!  This may not be complete or accurate, but (and this
> tip can be useful to everybody), the list of committers here has a
> column that in some cases shows a company.  Several people from Google
> are listed:
>
>
> http://bugs.python.org/user?iscommitter=1&@action=search&@sort=username&@pagesize=300


That isn't up to date and users cannot edit their own information (at least
it tells _me_ I'm not authorized when I submit the edit form on my own
info) so I wouldn't trust that page.  Yet another silly profile to maintain
in yet another location.  sigh.

There are many Google committers though not all are active.

-gps
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20121016/b47aa6e8/attachment.html>

From barry at python.org  Tue Oct 16 20:05:34 2012
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:05:34 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Googler Python committers
In-Reply-To: <CAGE7PNLnkfRQz0eAqT2VMLTJ+HQYkmD0HQFQ1hdT63FM0Y8--w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF-Rda9dnop_d_nNJ6u6iykwi0H5XXk7SwfqG9e_355YJMvotg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTb1weF=Vg=Z+XGHtWs-ZRfBVxDr2Xbx9oy6DDpwvh4Q_F9TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGE7PNLnkfRQz0eAqT2VMLTJ+HQYkmD0HQFQ1hdT63FM0Y8--w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20121016140534.0d3996e7@limelight.wooz.org>

On Oct 16, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:

>That isn't up to date and users cannot edit their own information (at least
>it tells _me_ I'm not authorized when I submit the edit form on my own
>info) so I wouldn't trust that page.  Yet another silly profile to maintain
>in yet another location.  sigh.

I was able to update my own information.

Cheers,
-Barry


From rdmurray at bitdance.com  Tue Oct 16 20:34:01 2012
From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:34:01 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Googler Python committers
In-Reply-To: <20121016140534.0d3996e7@limelight.wooz.org>
References: <CAF-Rda9dnop_d_nNJ6u6iykwi0H5XXk7SwfqG9e_355YJMvotg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTb1weF=Vg=Z+XGHtWs-ZRfBVxDr2Xbx9oy6DDpwvh4Q_F9TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGE7PNLnkfRQz0eAqT2VMLTJ+HQYkmD0HQFQ1hdT63FM0Y8--w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121016140534.0d3996e7@limelight.wooz.org>
Message-ID: <20121016183401.86DEE2500FA@webabinitio.net>

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:05:34 -0400, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> 
> >That isn't up to date and users cannot edit their own information (at least
> >it tells _me_ I'm not authorized when I submit the edit form on my own
> >info) so I wouldn't trust that page.  Yet another silly profile to maintain
> >in yet another location.  sigh.
> 
> I was able to update my own information.

Barry, you have Coordinator role as well as Developer.  Greg, you seem to
have two accounts, gps and gregory.p.smith.  gps doesn't have Developer
role (I added it before I realized you had the other account too, then
removed it :)  Which one were you trying to edit?  Users are supposed
to be able to edit their own info (well, most of it anyway), so maybe
there is a field level permissions bug in the tracker.

--David

From anthonybaxter at gmail.com  Wed Oct 17 02:06:09 2012
From: anthonybaxter at gmail.com (Anthony Baxter)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:06:09 +1100
Subject: [python-committers] Googler Python committers
In-Reply-To: <CAGE7PNLnkfRQz0eAqT2VMLTJ+HQYkmD0HQFQ1hdT63FM0Y8--w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF-Rda9dnop_d_nNJ6u6iykwi0H5XXk7SwfqG9e_355YJMvotg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTb1weF=Vg=Z+XGHtWs-ZRfBVxDr2Xbx9oy6DDpwvh4Q_F9TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGE7PNLnkfRQz0eAqT2VMLTJ+HQYkmD0HQFQ1hdT63FM0Y8--w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANxH2eSkMj2-M87HrT7XP6Y5YR6_+dTL9h3HtmnJcFyPJikUjQ@mail.gmail.com>

Yep. People tend to stop being so active when they join Google (including
me) :-(

There's a fair number of current or ex Python dev folks at Google. Guido,
Jeremy H, Alex M, Neal N, Thomas W off the top of my head, I am certain
there's a bunch more...
On Oct 17, 2012 4:12 AM, "Gregory P. Smith" <greg at krypto.org> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I had the privilege of joining Google's Mountain View office yesterday,
>> and
>> > was wondering who else from the core development team works there, or in
>> > Google in general (in addition to Guido, of course).
>>
>> Congrats, Eli!  This may not be complete or accurate, but (and this
>> tip can be useful to everybody), the list of committers here has a
>> column that in some cases shows a company.  Several people from Google
>> are listed:
>>
>>
>> http://bugs.python.org/user?iscommitter=1&@action=search&@sort=username&@pagesize=300
>
>
> That isn't up to date and users cannot edit their own information (at
> least it tells _me_ I'm not authorized when I submit the edit form on my
> own info) so I wouldn't trust that page.  Yet another silly profile to
> maintain in yet another location.  sigh.
>
> There are many Google committers though not all are active.
>
> -gps
>
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20121017/52943d8a/attachment-0001.html>

From greg at krypto.org  Wed Oct 17 02:33:13 2012
From: greg at krypto.org (Gregory P. Smith)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:33:13 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] Googler Python committers
In-Reply-To: <CANxH2eSkMj2-M87HrT7XP6Y5YR6_+dTL9h3HtmnJcFyPJikUjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF-Rda9dnop_d_nNJ6u6iykwi0H5XXk7SwfqG9e_355YJMvotg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTb1weF=Vg=Z+XGHtWs-ZRfBVxDr2Xbx9oy6DDpwvh4Q_F9TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGE7PNLnkfRQz0eAqT2VMLTJ+HQYkmD0HQFQ1hdT63FM0Y8--w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANxH2eSkMj2-M87HrT7XP6Y5YR6_+dTL9h3HtmnJcFyPJikUjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGE7PNK6fPsQY-u8JO5u9+EbocRCrjWtP1pUGiVYiA6jvnOZXA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Anthony Baxter <anthonybaxter at gmail.com>wrote:

> Yep. People tend to stop being so active when they join Google (including
> me) :-(
>
My activity increased.  I would not make that statement.

-gps
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20121016/c796cae5/attachment.html>

From anthonybaxter at gmail.com  Wed Oct 17 03:13:31 2012
From: anthonybaxter at gmail.com (Anthony Baxter)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:13:31 +1100
Subject: [python-committers] Googler Python committers
In-Reply-To: <CAGE7PNK6fPsQY-u8JO5u9+EbocRCrjWtP1pUGiVYiA6jvnOZXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF-Rda9dnop_d_nNJ6u6iykwi0H5XXk7SwfqG9e_355YJMvotg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOTb1weF=Vg=Z+XGHtWs-ZRfBVxDr2Xbx9oy6DDpwvh4Q_F9TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGE7PNLnkfRQz0eAqT2VMLTJ+HQYkmD0HQFQ1hdT63FM0Y8--w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANxH2eSkMj2-M87HrT7XP6Y5YR6_+dTL9h3HtmnJcFyPJikUjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGE7PNK6fPsQY-u8JO5u9+EbocRCrjWtP1pUGiVYiA6jvnOZXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANxH2eQqyAKXH6g2+_QG84E5QxmPH=PTotC0ruO7GaspdA-XMg@mail.gmail.com>

Fair enough - I did say "tend". :)


On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Gregory P. Smith <greg at krypto.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Anthony Baxter <anthonybaxter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Yep. People tend to stop being so active when they join Google (including
>> me) :-(
>
> My activity increased.  I would not make that statement.
>
> -gps

From andrew.svetlov at gmail.com  Wed Oct 17 23:15:11 2012
From: andrew.svetlov at gmail.com (Andrew Svetlov)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:15:11 +0300
Subject: [python-committers] New core developer
In-Reply-To: <5043B53F.4060106@ox.cx>
References: <1345678341.3346.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<5043B53F.4060106@ox.cx>
Message-ID: <CAL3CFcWRs10-ws56ObA+eKRUvmuLmxo4B55K6cgC2JWURsoZLQ@mail.gmail.com>

I would to pick up the question.

Serhiy Storchaka is responsible man and is very active.
His patches are good enough, often covering the matter out of view
from other Core Devs.
He is also receptive to comments/reviews as Antonie said (and I'm
agree with Antonie).

Serhiy can make a big value to Python as committer than as just a contributor.

I'm +1.

I really will to make a second poll pass.
>From my perspective first one had lack of activity due pre-release state.

Sorry if I'm wrong.


On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Hynek Schlawack <hs at ox.cx> wrote:
> I can?t really judge his responsiveness as he mostly hacks in areas I don?t.
>
> But judging from the issue lists he seems to be one of the most active
> current developers ATM with the curse of working on subsystems that are
> maintained by people that aren?t very prone to suggest new committers.
>
> So if you think he?s adequate, I?m sure he is. Probably overdue.
>
> +1
>
> Antoine Pitrou schrieb:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to propose Serhiy Storchaka as a new core developer. He has
>> made numerous contributions, and has proven receptive to comments and
>> reviews. He's also interested in becoming a core developer.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers



-- 
Thanks,
Andrew Svetlov

From solipsis at pitrou.net  Wed Oct 17 23:28:21 2012
From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:28:21 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] New core developer
In-Reply-To: <CAL3CFcWRs10-ws56ObA+eKRUvmuLmxo4B55K6cgC2JWURsoZLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1345678341.3346.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<5043B53F.4060106@ox.cx>
	<CAL3CFcWRs10-ws56ObA+eKRUvmuLmxo4B55K6cgC2JWURsoZLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1350509301.3364.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>


Hello,

Le jeudi 18 octobre 2012 ? 00:15 +0300, Andrew Svetlov a ?crit :
> I would to pick up the question.
> 
> Serhiy Storchaka is responsible man and is very active.
> His patches are good enough, often covering the matter out of view
> from other Core Devs.
> He is also receptive to comments/reviews as Antonie said (and I'm
> agree with Antonie).
> 
> Serhiy can make a big value to Python as committer than as just a contributor.

Serhiy preferred to decline since some core devs were lukewarn towards
his becoming a core dev. Of course he can still candidate again later.

Regards

Antoine (not ? Antonie ?, by the way :-)).

> 
> I'm +1.
> 
> I really will to make a second poll pass.
> From my perspective first one had lack of activity due pre-release state.
> 
> Sorry if I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Hynek Schlawack <hs at ox.cx> wrote:
> > I can?t really judge his responsiveness as he mostly hacks in areas I don?t.
> >
> > But judging from the issue lists he seems to be one of the most active
> > current developers ATM with the curse of working on subsystems that are
> > maintained by people that aren?t very prone to suggest new committers.
> >
> > So if you think he?s adequate, I?m sure he is. Probably overdue.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Antoine Pitrou schrieb:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose Serhiy Storchaka as a new core developer. He has
> >> made numerous contributions, and has proven receptive to comments and
> >> reviews. He's also interested in becoming a core developer.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Antoine.
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > python-committers mailing list
> > python-committers at python.org
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers



From andrew.svetlov at gmail.com  Thu Oct 18 00:36:35 2012
From: andrew.svetlov at gmail.com (Andrew Svetlov)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:36:35 +0300
Subject: [python-committers] New core developer
In-Reply-To: <1350509301.3364.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1345678341.3346.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<5043B53F.4060106@ox.cx>
	<CAL3CFcWRs10-ws56ObA+eKRUvmuLmxo4B55K6cgC2JWURsoZLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1350509301.3364.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <CAL3CFcVru4p-ojDcoyieAh7Rr5J7Oa3wgTBvaXe=rtcx-QUQag@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Le jeudi 18 octobre 2012 ? 00:15 +0300, Andrew Svetlov a ?crit :
>> I would to pick up the question.
>>
>> Serhiy Storchaka is responsible man and is very active.
>> His patches are good enough, often covering the matter out of view
>> from other Core Devs.
>> He is also receptive to comments/reviews as Antonie said (and I'm
>> agree with Antonie).
>>
>> Serhiy can make a big value to Python as committer than as just a contributor.
>
> Serhiy preferred to decline since some core devs were lukewarn towards
> his becoming a core dev. Of course he can still candidate again later.
>
> Regards
>


> Antoine (not ? Antonie ?, by the way :-)).
>
Sorry, Antoine. In my land Anton is common name, but Antoine was known
me only as Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry in Russian notation.
I will never again make this mistake.


>>
>> I'm +1.
>>
>> I really will to make a second poll pass.
>> From my perspective first one had lack of activity due pre-release state.
>>
>> Sorry if I'm wrong.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Hynek Schlawack <hs at ox.cx> wrote:
>> > I can?t really judge his responsiveness as he mostly hacks in areas I don?t.
>> >
>> > But judging from the issue lists he seems to be one of the most active
>> > current developers ATM with the curse of working on subsystems that are
>> > maintained by people that aren?t very prone to suggest new committers.
>> >
>> > So if you think he?s adequate, I?m sure he is. Probably overdue.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Antoine Pitrou schrieb:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to propose Serhiy Storchaka as a new core developer. He has
>> >> made numerous contributions, and has proven receptive to comments and
>> >> reviews. He's also interested in becoming a core developer.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think?
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> Antoine.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > python-committers mailing list
>> > python-committers at python.org
>> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers



-- 
Thanks,
Andrew Svetlov

From trent at snakebite.org  Sun Oct 28 01:36:18 2012
From: trent at snakebite.org (Trent Nelson)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:36:18 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Remote access to Snakebite Windows boxes
Message-ID: <20121027233617.GA17527@snakebite.org>

    Just noticed some chatter on #python-dev earlier today regarding
    access to Windows boxes, and wanted to let you know the Snakebite
    Windows boxes are definitely available for remote login...

    ....sort of.  Remote desktop login is a bit trickier than ssh as
    you need to enter the password for the cpython account.  I have
    built the relevant gpg infrastructure to pipe account passwords
    to you via the existing ~/.snakebite stuff... it just needs a
    first-windows-remote-login guinea pig to tweak how everything
    works.

    So, if you want to be the guinea pig, ping me on #python-dev!
    (Or e-mail if my idle time on IRC seems excessive.)

        Trent.