Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
Am 18.06.2010 um 22:53 schrieb Terry Reedy : On 6/18/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Dörwald wrote: http://coverage.livinglogic.de/ I am a bit puzzled as to the meaning of the gray/red/green bars since the correlation between coverage % and bars is not very high. The gray bar is the uncoverable part of the source (empty lines, comments etc.), the green bar is the covered part (i.e. those lines that really got executed) and the red bar is the uncovered part (i.e. Those lines that could have been executed but weren't). So coverage is green / (green + red) Just click on the coverage header to sort by coverage and you *will* see a correlation. Servus, Walter ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
You mean Twisted support, because library support is at the point where there are fewer actively maintained packages not yet ported than those which are. Of course if your Python experience is hyper-focused to one framework that isn't ported yet, it will certainly seem like a lot, and you guys who run #Python are clearly hyper-focused on Twisted. Great example of the current state: about an hour ago I needed an inotify Python package for a Py3 project. I googled for "Python inotify", found pyinotify, saw that they have several recent releases but no mention of Py3, typed "sudo emerge -av pyinotify", and it installed pyinotify for Python 2.6, 3.1, and 3.2_pre at the same time. Run python interactively, imports and works great. Portage (Gentoo's package system, emerge being the primary command) is Python based and fully ported to Python 3. Most of my workstations and production servers report "/usr/bin/python --version" as "Python 3.1.2" (Python 2.6 is /usr/bin/python2), my Apache's mod_wsgi is compiled for Python 3 and save for a few Django and Trac sites (fastcgi) all of my Python-based webapps run on it. CherryPy and SQLAlchemy have had Py3 support for some time. I can name in a short list the legacy Python packages I use: - Django - Trac - Mercurial (they have a Summer of Code student working to port it now) - PIL (apparently will have a Python 3 release out soon) - pygtk (Python 3 support planned for Gnome 3 in a few months) - xmpppy The list of Python 3 packages I use regularly is at least 50 names long and I have only contributed to porting a dozen or so of those. This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it only saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these libraries you need ported faster. On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Stephen Thorne wrote: > > Yes, #python keeps the text "It's too early to use Python 3.x" in its > topic. > Library support is the only reason. > > ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
On 19/06/2010 11:59, Arc Riley wrote: You mean Twisted support, because library support is at the point where there are fewer actively maintained packages not yet ported than those which are. Of course if your Python experience is hyper-focused to one framework that isn't ported yet, it will certainly seem like a lot, and you guys who run #Python are clearly hyper-focused on Twisted. Great example of the current state: about an hour ago I needed an inotify Python package for a Py3 project. I googled for "Python inotify", found pyinotify, saw that they have several recent releases but no mention of Py3, typed "sudo emerge -av pyinotify", and it installed pyinotify for Python 2.6, 3.1, and 3.2_pre at the same time. Run python interactively, imports and works great. Portage (Gentoo's package system, emerge being the primary command) is Python based and fully ported to Python 3. Most of my workstations and production servers report "/usr/bin/python --version" as "Python 3.1.2" (Python 2.6 is /usr/bin/python2), my Apache's mod_wsgi is compiled for Python 3 and save for a few Django and Trac sites (fastcgi) all of my Python-based webapps run on it. CherryPy and SQLAlchemy have had Py3 support for some time. I can name in a short list the legacy Python packages I use: - Django - Trac - Mercurial (they have a Summer of Code student working to port it now) - PIL (apparently will have a Python 3 release out soon) - pygtk (Python 3 support planned for Gnome 3 in a few months) - xmpppy The list of Python 3 packages I use regularly is at least 50 names long and I have only contributed to porting a dozen or so of those. This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it only saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these libraries you need ported faster. Fair comment, but how many people are waiting for numpy for Python 3? I'd guess that it's many, many thousands, given that there are people such as myself who use it indirectly, in my case via matplotlib. Note that I am aware that the numpy Python 3 support is very close to release. Kindest regards. Mark Lawrence. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
anatoly techtonik writes: > I do not know what are you intending to do, but my opinion that > fund raising for patching library is a waste of money. Of course it's not a waste of money. The need is real, so as long as the PSF and other organizations (GSoC) choose reasonable projects/ people to support, progress will be steady. Merely the sense that real resources are flowing into the stdlib from outside the volunteer core will encourage more volunteers as well. > PSF should concentrate on enhancing tools to make lives of library > supporters easier. I do not want to become a maintainer, Well, the current maintainers, while not yet happy with the state of the infrastructure, have been steadily engaged in improving it by adding features that have consensus support. But getting consensus support is not easy. Eg, I thought that with three plausible candidates, of which Mercurial was obviously satisfactory (although I preferred git, myself, and a at least couple people advocated Bazaar strongly), a switch to a dVCS was a no-brainer. It wasn't. Several people opposed it strongly until it became clear that in theory at least it would require *no* changes to current workflow (although I think most of those developers will find much to like about the changes Mercurial will bring). And even now implementation is hanging up on the requirement that it not affect Windows-based developers adversely ... and it turns out that even being Python-based is nowhere near enough to guarantee that, but rather it requires further effort before that will become reality -- and it's not forthcoming from the Mercurial developers, who unsurprisingly like Mercurial enough to deal with the minor flaws. IMO, if you want to improve the infrastructure, you need to work on getting consensus behind a few of your proposals, rather than making one after another and not following up with code or a PEP. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Mercurial
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:34:41 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote: > > And even now > implementation is hanging up on the requirement that it not affect > Windows-based developers adversely ... and it turns out that even > being Python-based is nowhere near enough to guarantee that, but > rather it requires further effort before that will become reality -- > and it's not forthcoming from the Mercurial developers, who > unsurprisingly like Mercurial enough to deal with the minor flaws. FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
On 10:59 am, [email protected] wrote: You mean Twisted support, because library support is at the point where there are fewer actively maintained packages not yet ported than those which are. Of course if your Python experience is hyper-focused to one framework that isn't ported yet, it will certainly seem like a lot, and you guys who run #Python are clearly hyper-focused on Twisted. Arc, This isn't about Twisted. Let's not waste everyone's time by trying to make it into a conflict between Twisted users and the rest of the Python community. You listed six other major packages that you yourself use that aren't available on Python 3 yet, so why are you trying to say here that this is all about Twisted? [snip] This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it only saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these libraries you need ported faster. No, it's not damaging. Critical self-evaluation is a useful tool. Trying to silence differing perspectives is what's damaging to the community. Jean-Paul ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: > http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension Should we all move soon now? Any target date you have in mind, Antoine? -- Senthil ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial
On Jun 19, 2010, at 05:43 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote: >On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: >> http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension > >Should we all move soon now? >Any target date you have in mind, Antoine? I believe the plan was to migrate right after 2.7 final is released. I hope that is still the plan. Since that is only 2 weeks away, are we ready? -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:43:02 +0530 Senthil Kumaran wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: > > http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension > > Should we all move soon now? > Any target date you have in mind, Antoine? I should point out that I am in no way responsible for the migration. I think Dirkjan and Brett said they would tackle this after the 2.7 release. But they'd better answer by themselves :) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > I should point out that I am in no way responsible for the migration. > I think Dirkjan and Brett said they would tackle this after the 2.7 > release. But they'd better answer by themselves :) I'm willing to help out if needed. Can't hurt to have another set of hands :) I'm sure there are others in the Mercurial/Python community that would be willing to help too! cheers james ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial
Am 19.06.2010 14:33, schrieb Barry Warsaw: On Jun 19, 2010, at 05:43 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote: On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:51:04PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote: FWIW, the EOL extension is now part of Mercurial: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/EolExtension Should we all move soon now? Any target date you have in mind, Antoine? I believe the plan was to migrate right after 2.7 final is released. I don't think so. The last update to the plan that I know of was in http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-February/097497.html and it said that we would migrate on May 1. This hasn't happened, but there was no update to the plan since (that I know of). I hope that is still the plan. Since that is only 2 weeks away, are we ready? Not nearly. AFAICT, the conversion process isn't complete yet, and the hook scripts are missing. Also, I would really like to see a /final/ demo installation *before* the switchover; because these things are all missing, the final demo installation is missing, as well. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
Just because legacy Python needs to be kept around for a bit longer for a few uses does not mean that "Python 3 is not ready yet". Any decent package system can have two or more versions of Python installed at the same time. It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and other ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said that they are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python 3 is not ready". One of our Summer of Code students this year actually included in his application that he was told (strongly) in #Python that he shouldn't be working with Py3 - even after he expressed his intent to apply under the PSF to help with the Py3 migration effort as his project. Besides rally against it what have you, as a Twisted developer, done regarding the Python 3 migration process? On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 8:12 AM, wrote: > On 10:59 am, [email protected] wrote: > >> You mean Twisted support, because library support is at the point where >> there are fewer actively maintained packages not yet ported than those >> which >> are. Of course if your Python experience is hyper-focused to one >> framework >> that isn't ported yet, it will certainly seem like a lot, and you guys who >> run #Python are clearly hyper-focused on Twisted. >> > > Arc, > > This isn't about Twisted. Let's not waste everyone's time by trying to > make it into a conflict between Twisted users and the rest of the Python > community. > > You listed six other major packages that you yourself use that aren't > available on Python 3 yet, so why are you trying to say here that this is > all about Twisted? > >> [snip] >> >> >> This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. >> We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it >> only >> saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these >> libraries you need ported faster. >> > > No, it's not damaging. Critical self-evaluation is a useful tool. Trying > to silence differing perspectives is what's damaging to the community. > > Jean-Paul > ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
This anti-Py3 rhetoric is damaging to the community and needs to stop. We're moving forward toward Python 3.2 and beyond, complaining about it only saps valuable developer time (including your own) from getting these libraries you need ported faster. No, it's not damaging. Critical self-evaluation is a useful tool. It's useful only if constructive. Stating a problem is, in itself, just frustrating. One needs to accompany it with proposals of actions. In the specific case, I'm optimistic, though. 2.7 will be the last release of 2.x, so it will then be easier to focus on fixing the 3.x bugs. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Mercurial
Am 19.06.2010 15:05, schrieb James Mills: On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: I should point out that I am in no way responsible for the migration. I think Dirkjan and Brett said they would tackle this after the 2.7 release. But they'd better answer by themselves :) I'm willing to help out if needed. Can't hurt to have another set of hands :) I'm sure there are others in the Mercurial/Python community that would be willing to help too! Take a look at http://hg.python.org/pymigr/ What I *think* is missing is all the hook scripts (but you would need to check with Dirkjan whether they are already somewhere). In theory, I would expect that you can run this migration suite yourself, and get a working installation - but I never tried myself. See also PEP 385, which is the master plan. I'm not sure whether the approach to branches has been approved (or who could really approve it); I just notice that the current conversion produces a ridiculously large repository (which fails to download with older versions of hg because of size). On the meta level, what seems to be missing as well is a clear view on what the status is - so if you manage to get it working somehow, don't forget to post what you think the status is. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
Am 19.06.2010 15:09, schrieb Arc Riley: > Just because legacy Python needs to be kept around for a bit longer for > a few uses does not mean that "Python 3 is not ready yet". Any decent > package system can have two or more versions of Python installed at the > same time. > > It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" > as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word > "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a > religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html > > I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and > other ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said > that they are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python > 3 is not ready". One of our Summer of Code students this year actually > included in his application that he was told (strongly) in #Python that > he shouldn't be working with Py3 - even after he expressed his intent to > apply under the PSF to help with the Py3 migration effort as his project. Ouch. Looks like it's time for the PSU to release the 10-ton wei ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Foord wrote: > I didn't make myself clear. The expected disappointment I was referring > to was about the rate of adoption, not about the quality of the product. > > I'm still baffled as to how a bug in the cgi module (along with the > acknowledged email problems) is such a big deal. Was it reported and > then languished in the bug tracker? That would be bad ion its own but if > it was only recently discovered that indicates that it probably isn't > such a big deal - either way it needs fixing, but using Python for > writing cgis hasn't been a big use case for a long time. FWIW: some APIs in the cgi module is actually used by a number of Python2 web frameworks and libraries: Paste, for instance, uses it, and is in turn used by BFG, Pylons, TurboGears. Zope has used it that way since for ever. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [email protected] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkwczNsACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7IjACfVcUshd10OQfZJqLMmU5p1nZ6 5OcAmwSsn7+q1GO67I1HuOH1waEDI8v/ =1geT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
[email protected] writes: > I agree that 3.X isn't all bad, and I very much hope it succeeds. And > no, I have no answers; I'm just reporting the perception from downwind. The fact is, though, that many of your "downwind" readers are not the audience for Python 3, not yet. If you want to do Python 3 a favor, make sure that they understand that Python 3 is *not* an "upgrade" of Python 2. It's a hard task for you, but IMO one strategy is to write in the style that we wrote the DVCS PEP (#374) in: here's how you do the same task in these similar languages. And just as git and Bazaar turned out to have fatal defects in terms of adoption *in that time frame*, Python 3 is not yet adoptable for many, many users. Python 3 is a Python-2-like language, but even though it's built on the same design principles, and uses nearly identical syntax, there are fundamental differences. And it is *very* young. So it's a new language and should be approached in the same way as any new language. Try it on non-mission critical projects, on projects where its library support has a good reputation, etc. Many of your readers have no time (or perhaps no approval "from upstairs") for that kind of thing. Too bad, but that's what happens to every great new language. > So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things > on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is > prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in > this regard, the implications of the 3.X string solution remain to be > fully resolved in the 3.X standard library to this day. What is a > common Python user to make of that? Why should she make anything of that? Python 3 is a *new* language, possibly as different from Python 2 as C++ was from C (and *more* different in terms of fundamental incompatibilities). And as long as C++ was almost entirely dependent on C libraries, there were problems. (Not to mention that even today there are plenty of programmers who are proud to be C programmers, not C++ programmers.) Today, Python 3 is entirely dependent on Python 2 libraries. It's human to hope there will be no problems, but not realistic. BTW, I think what you're missing is that you're wrong about the money. Python 3 is still about the fun and the code. "Fun and code" are why the core developers spent about five years developing it, because doing that was fun, because the new code has high value as code, and because it promised *them* a more fun and more productive future. Library support, on the other hand, *is* about money. Your readers, down in the trenches of WWW, intraweb, and sysadmin implementation and support, depend on robust libraries to get their day jobs done. They really don't care that writing Python 3 was fun, and that programming in Python 3 is more fun than ever. That doesn't compensate for even one lingering str/bytes bogosity to most of them, and since they don't get paid for fixing Python library bugs, they don't, and they're in no mood to *forgive* any, either. So tell users who feel that way to use Python 2, for now, and check on Python 3 progress every 6 months or so. And users who are just a bit more adventurous to stick to applications where the libraries already have a good reputation *in Python 3*. It's as simple as that, I think. Regards, ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Noller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: >> At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +, [email protected] wrote: >>> So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things >>> on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is >>> prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in >>> this regard, the implications of the 3.X string solution remain to be >>> fully resolved in the 3.X standard library to this day. What is a >>> common Python user to make of that? >> Certainly, this was my impression as well, after all the Web-SIG discussions >> regarding the state of the stdlib in 3.x with respect to URL parsing, >> joining, opening, etc. > > Nothing is set in stone; if something is incredibly painful, or worse > yet broken, then someone needs to file a bug, bring it to this list, > or bring up a patch. Or walk away. > This is code we're talking about - nothing is set > in stone, and if something is criminally broken it needs to be first > identified, and then fixed. > >> To be honest, I'm waiting to see some sort of tutorial(s) for using 3.x that >> actually addresses these kinds of stdlib usage issues, so that I don't have >> to think about it or futz around with experimenting, possibly to find that >> some things can't be done at all. > > I guess tutorial welcome, rather than patch welcome then ;) The only folks who can write the tutorial are the ones who have already drunk the koolaid. Note that I've been making my living with Python for about twelve years now, and would *like* to use Python3, but can't, yet, and therefore haven't taken the first sip. >> IOW, 3.x has broken TOOOWTDI for me in some areas. There may be obvious >> ways to do it, but, as per the Zen of Python, "that way may not be obvious >> at first unless you're Dutch". ;-) > > What areas. We need specifics which can either be: > > 1> Shot down. > 2> Turned into bugs, so they can be fixed > 3> Documented in the core documentation. That's bloody ironic in a thread which had pointed at reasons why people are not even considering Py3 for their projects: those folks won't even find the issues due to the lack of confidence in the suitability of the platform. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [email protected] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkwc0I0ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ6aDgCguYv+BXou0a42Yi7ERGCHOfIv 6REAnjejq4LDbE9c/gCqB+xs1yGfQ4KR =/9fw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
On 01:09 pm, [email protected] wrote: [snip] It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html It's not my website. I don't own the domain, I don't control the hosting, I didn't generate the content, I have no access to change anything on it. I've barely even frequent #python in the last three years. Perhaps you were directing those comments at Stephen Thorne though (although I don't know if he's any more involved in it than I am so don't take this as anything but idle speculation). I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and other ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said that they are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python 3 is not ready". I'm not going to condone or condemn events which I didn't observe. However you've never witnessed me discouraging developers who were actively porting software to Python 3 because I've never done it. I'm sure this was an honest mistake and you simply confused me with someone else. Besides rally against it what have you, as a Twisted developer, done regarding the Python 3 migration process? This, however, I find extremely insulting. I don't answer to you. The only reason I'm replying at all is to correct the two pieces of misinformation in your message. I don't see how this discussion can go anywhere productive, so I'll do my best to make this my last post on the subject. Obviously I made a mistake posting to the thread at all. Jean-Paul ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Noller wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +, [email protected] wrote: So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in this regard, the implications of the 3.X string solution remain to be fully resolved in the 3.X standard library to this day. What is a common Python user to make of that? Certainly, this was my impression as well, after all the Web-SIG discussions regarding the state of the stdlib in 3.x with respect to URL parsing, joining, opening, etc. Nothing is set in stone; if something is incredibly painful, or worse yet broken, then someone needs to file a bug, bring it to this list, or bring up a patch. Or walk away. Ok. If you want. This is code we're talking about - nothing is set in stone, and if something is criminally broken it needs to be first identified, and then fixed. To be honest, I'm waiting to see some sort of tutorial(s) for using 3.x that actually addresses these kinds of stdlib usage issues, so that I don't have to think about it or futz around with experimenting, possibly to find that some things can't be done at all. I guess tutorial welcome, rather than patch welcome then ;) The only folks who can write the tutorial are the ones who have already drunk the koolaid. Note that I've been making my living with Python for about twelve years now, and would *like* to use Python3, but can't, yet, and therefore haven't taken the first sip. Why can't you? Is it a bug? Let's file it and fix it. Is it that you need a dependency ported? Cool - let's bring it up to the maintainers, or this list, or ask the PSF to push resources into helping port. Anything but nothing. If what you're saying is that python 3 is a completely unsuitable platform, well, then yeah - we can all "fix" it or walk away. IOW, 3.x has broken TOOOWTDI for me in some areas. There may be obvious ways to do it, but, as per the Zen of Python, "that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch". ;-) What areas. We need specifics which can either be: 1> Shot down. 2> Turned into bugs, so they can be fixed 3> Documented in the core documentation. That's bloody ironic in a thread which had pointed at reasons why people are not even considering Py3 for their projects: those folks won't even find the issues due to the lack of confidence in the suitability of the platform. What I saw was a thread about some issues in email, and cgi. We have some work being done to address the issue. This will help resolve some of the issues. I'd there are other issues, then we should step up and either help, or get out ofthe way. Arguing about the viability of a platform we knew would take a bit for adoption is silly and breeds ill will. It's not a turd, and it's not hopeless, in fact rumor has it NumPy will be ported soon which is a major stepping stone. The only way to counteract this meme that python 3 is horribly broken is to prove that it's not, fix bugs, and move on. There's no point debating relative turdiness here. Jesse ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Jesse Noller wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: At 05:22 PM 6/18/2010 +, [email protected] wrote: > > So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted > things > on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is > prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in > this regard, the implications of the 3.X string solution remain to be > fully resolved in the 3.X standard library to this day. What is a > common Python user to make of that? Certainly, this was my impression as well, after all the Web-SIG discussions regarding the state of the stdlib in 3.x with respect to URL parsing, joining, opening, etc. >>> >>> Nothing is set in stone; if something is incredibly painful, or worse >>> yet broken, then someone needs to file a bug, bring it to this list, >>> or bring up a patch. >> >> Or walk away. >> > > Ok. If you want. > >>> This is code we're talking about - nothing is set >>> in stone, and if something is criminally broken it needs to be first >>> identified, and then fixed. >>> To be honest, I'm waiting to see some sort of tutorial(s) for using 3.x that actually addresses these kinds of stdlib usage issues, so that I don't have to think about it or futz around with experimenting, possibly to find that some things can't be done at all. >>> >>> I guess tutorial welcome, rather than patch welcome then ;) >> >> The only folks who can write the tutorial are the ones who have already >> drunk the koolaid. Note that I've been making my living with Python for >> about twelve years now, and would *like* to use Python3, but can't, yet, >> and therefore haven't taken the first sip. > > Why can't you? Is it a bug? Let's file it and fix it. Is it that you need a > dependency ported? Cool - let's bring it up to the maintainers, or this > list, or ask the PSF to push resources into helping port. Anything but > nothing. > > If what you're saying is that python 3 is a completely unsuitable platform, > well, then yeah - we can all "fix" it or walk away. > >> IOW, 3.x has broken TOOOWTDI for me in some areas. There may be obvious ways to do it, but, as per the Zen of Python, "that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch". ;-) >>> >>> What areas. We need specifics which can either be: >>> >>> 1> Shot down. >>> 2> Turned into bugs, so they can be fixed >>> 3> Documented in the core documentation. >> >> That's bloody ironic in a thread which had pointed at reasons why people >> are not even considering Py3 for their projects: those folks won't even >> find the issues due to the lack of confidence in the suitability of the >> platform. > > What I saw was a thread about some issues in email, and cgi. We have some > work being done to address the issue. This will help resolve some of the > issues. > > I'd there are other issues, then we should step up and either help, or get > out ofthe way. Arguing about the viability of a platform we knew would take > a bit for adoption is silly and breeds ill will. > s/I'd/If - stupid phone. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
python-commandments.org is owned and hosted by the same person (Allen Short aka dash aka washort) as pound-python.org which is the "official" website for #Python and which links to it. #Python is co-managed by Stephen Thorne (aka Jerub) and Allen Short (aka dash aka washort). According to Freenode services, the channel operators include more than half the active Twisted Matrix developers, including yourself. Each of you has had the ability to change the topic at any time. I may have cast an overly broad net in including you, I don't have IRC logs to review. I do remember that you have contributed a great deal of time to helping people in #Python and that you were fairly active as a channel operator in #Python when the anti-Py3 rhetoric got started. Perhaps you can shine some light on who is actually responsible for promoting this? I'm sorry if we're in uncomfortable finger-pointing mode, but in the spirit of critical self-evaluation I think its time we take a long look at who is actually representing the Python community in operating our primary community help channel and whether that situation should continue. On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:28 AM, wrote: > On 01:09 pm, [email protected] wrote: > >> [snip] >> >> It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as >> litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" >> here >> because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website >> http://python-commandments.org/python3.html >> > > It's not my website. I don't own the domain, I don't control the hosting, > I didn't generate the content, I have no access to change anything on it. > I've barely even frequent #python in the last three years. > > Perhaps you were directing those comments at Stephen Thorne though > (although I don't know if he's any more involved in it than I am so don't > take this as anything but idle speculation). > > I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and other >> ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said that they >> are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python 3 is not >> ready". >> > > I'm not going to condone or condemn events which I didn't observe. > > However you've never witnessed me discouraging developers who were actively > porting software to Python 3 because I've never done it. I'm sure this was > an honest mistake and you simply confused me with someone else. > > Besides rally against it what have you, as a Twisted developer, done >> regarding the Python 3 migration process? >> > > This, however, I find extremely insulting. I don't answer to you. The > only reason I'm replying at all is to correct the two pieces of > misinformation in your message. > > I don't see how this discussion can go anywhere productive, so I'll do my > best to make this my last post on the subject. Obviously I made a mistake > posting to the thread at all. > > Jean-Paul > ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:14:51 -0400 Arc Riley wrote: > python-commandments.org is owned and hosted by the same person (Allen Short > aka dash aka washort) as pound-python.org which is the "official" website > for #Python and which links to it. > > #Python is co-managed by Stephen Thorne (aka Jerub) and Allen Short (aka > dash aka washort). According to Freenode services, the channel operators > include more than half the active Twisted Matrix developers, including > yourself. Each of you has had the ability to change the topic at any time. I don't think it's constructive to treat the Twisted developers as an uniform society. I would expect #python (which I don't think I have ever participated in) to function like any community, where you don't make unilateral changes if others disagree with you. Jean-Paul said “I've barely even frequent #python in the last three years”. Knowing this, I don't know how he could impose a topic change on his own. > I'm sorry if we're in uncomfortable finger-pointing mode, but in the spirit > of critical self-evaluation I think its time we take a long look at who is > actually representing the Python community in operating our primary > community help channel and whether that situation should continue. Well, perhaps, but whether Python 3 is misrepresented shouldn't be the only metric, then. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
At 10:55 PM 6/19/2010 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: They really don't care that writing Python 3 was fun, and that programming in Python 3 is more fun than ever. That doesn't compensate for even one lingering str/bytes bogosity to most of them, and since they don't get paid for fixing Python library bugs, they don't, and they're in no mood to *forgive* any, either. This is pretty much where I'm at, except that the only potential fun increase Py3 appears to offer me are argument annotations and keyword-only args -- but these are partly balanced by the loss of argument tuple unpacking. The metaclass keyword argument is nice, but the loss of dynamically-settable __metaclass__ is just plain annoying. Really, just about everything that Py3 offers in the way of added fun, seems offset by a matching loss somewhere else. So it's hard to get excited about it - it seems like, "ho hum, a new language that's kind of like Python, but just different enough to be annoying." OTOH, I don't know what to do about that, besides adding some sort of "killer app" feature that makes Python 3 the One Obvious Way to do some specific application domain. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
On 19/06/2010 14:43, Georg Brandl wrote: Am 19.06.2010 15:09, schrieb Arc Riley: Just because legacy Python needs to be kept around for a bit longer for a few uses does not mean that "Python 3 is not ready yet". Any decent package system can have two or more versions of Python installed at the same time. It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html I have further witnessed (and even been the other party to) you and other ops in #Python telling package developers, who have clearly said that they are working to port their legacy package to Py3, that "Python 3 is not ready". One of our Summer of Code students this year actually included in his application that he was told (strongly) in #Python that he shouldn't be working with Py3 - even after he expressed his intent to apply under the PSF to help with the Py3 migration effort as his project. Ouch. Looks like it's time for the PSU to release the 10-ton wei Please raise a new issue, the weight should be 16 ton to conform to Python standards. Cheers. Mark Lawrence. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Arc Riley wrote: > python-commandments.org is owned and hosted by the same person (Allen Short > aka dash aka washort) as pound-python.org which is the "official" website > for #Python and which links to it. > > #Python is co-managed by Stephen Thorne (aka Jerub) and Allen Short (aka > dash aka washort). According to Freenode services, the channel operators > include more than half the active Twisted Matrix developers, including > yourself. Each of you has had the ability to change the topic at any time. > > I may have cast an overly broad net in including you, I don't have IRC logs > to review. I do remember that you have contributed a great deal of time to > helping people in #Python and that you were fairly active as a channel > operator in #Python when the anti-Py3 rhetoric got started. Perhaps you can > shine some light on who is actually responsible for promoting this? > > I'm sorry if we're in uncomfortable finger-pointing mode, but in the spirit > of critical self-evaluation I think its time we take a long look at who is > actually representing the Python community in operating our primary > community help channel and whether that situation should continue. Amen. I've heard about people being told not to use python3 on the irc *way* too many times for it to be all make believe. Geremy Condra ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, Sorry for the maybe somewhat late response but I am not a subscriber on the python-dev mailinglists. Someone else pointed me towards this thread and I want to shortly clarify a few things regarding the following two statements: It is not "critical self-evaluation" to repeat "Python 3 is not ready" as litany in #Python and your supporting website. I use the word "litany" here because #Python refers users to what appears to be a religious website http://python-commandments.org/python3.html python-commandments.org is owned and hosted by the same person (Allen Short aka dash aka washort) as pound-python.org which is the "official" website for #Python and which links to it. Both python-commandments.org and pound-python.org are my websites. I own both the domains and I do all administrative tasks regarding these domains. pound-python.org is the official #python website and as such is maintained on Launchpad by a team of volunteers, see: https://launchpad.net/ ~pound-python which is indeed owned by Allen Short. However, Allen Short has nothing to do with the Python Commandments page. That is an endeavor for which I am the sole responsible person. I have asked some people to contribute texts but that doesn't change that I should be spoken to regarding the content on that website. If there are any issues with the content on either website please do not hesitate to contact me at this email address or on IRC where I go by the nickname of ikanobori. As for the potentially harmful text on Python 3 which is included on the python-commandments website I do get the hint that it might not be clear enough that the text does not apply to people who are porting libraries. This is a complaint I have heard before and to which I will take affirmative action by explicitly adding text to clarify that. Hope all is well, Regards, Simon de Vlieger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMHSC2AAoJEBBSHP7i+JXf5pMQANPBCUzDwx2xjTP8shA1E4mx 7/OQk27nxt+wOZNT0Ybe/iNXLetF6qa8At7kTau/yU3l/xJWVODjfJUICkDv/0ad ebMKiFeKO8jqdvEe+RL3ck7jTXEM73C2PLNtge9FLTY6HhYrXnOJakNbpWPJR/PG TQQ+mY/8ZvSP+n98RrY9kcVaVJMSmXUJWHvWVh+LkcIDwF/h30EH/e5PUGzylINI NiV5955pNRXTnwdgjsouljUI/rrod3zphnUEyL22QvSUx0b7YXMfC24eRGTpwrLg 9cyQAMjjbuVqkhSJhYFnm+DKwsZEAHxxOvu50Xwuy3i1C7c8L6/QDT1txoSTVuaP 4xw8GSFEblbHviz7hY7KCe5nMpBNHNfcGFHFSWd+WYogRXjpDitlMDNW8HT56pRW lwzs1WENnoOSCAn4Xds+xPJj9JyAGnS8rWz70RVMyrkHDFaJhDlIDNpEFdlAlywT R0uCQrlxs/uWzAXK2IA0wXPtm/m8fYLR3q8mD4++QotZKQcT4ciN7Xv913/ZT2b2 NtR1WEoTZAV+gWrFyFsgmMFAmZhvUdI8Ludxs3l2smHHaCFUkj2Ur9BrkMiEv5Z8 wLN+/LRaHgGnmVT2SF0LOCeOLz97dP728OKBO0DwxqT89Cla8445z7ktdHnJ3amA gjbsfG7W+yx9L2v0IDFC =YDiR -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x
Simon de Vlieger writes: > As for the potentially harmful text on Python 3 which is included on > the python-commandments website I do get the hint that it might not be > clear enough that the text does not apply to people who are porting > libraries. It also doesn't apply to people who don't need unported libraries, eg, where the task is plain old text filtering or command line scripting. Don't ask me for the list of "unported libraries", I know of none from personal experience. You might also want to withdraw the claim that Python 2.x is actively developed. With the release of 2.7, that's not true any more, not in the sense that most people think of "actively developed." ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Year 0 and year 10,000 in timetuple
While datetime range is limited to years from 1 through , it is possible to produce time tuple with year 0 or year 10,000: >>> t1 = datetime.min.replace(tzinfo=timezone.max) >>> t2 = datetime.max.replace(tzinfo=timezone.min) >>> t1.utctimetuple().tm_year 0 >>> t2.utctimetuple().tm_year 1 Most if not all functions consuming timetuples are not designed to handle years beyond and such timetuples cannot be converted back to datetime. I would like to make utctimetuple() method to raise OverflowError on values like t1 or t2 above. These values are most certainly a mistake in application ad it is better to detect them earlier before they make their way into system functions that cannot handle them. See issues 9005 and 6608 on the tracker. http://bugs.python.org/issue9005 http://bugs.python.org/issue6608 ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Year 0 and year 10,000 in timetuple
But what if they are used intentionally as "impossible" or sentinel values? --Guido (on Android) On Jun 19, 2010 2:37 PM, "Alexander Belopolsky" < [email protected]> wrote: > While datetime range is limited to years from 1 through , it is > possible to produce time tuple with year 0 or year 10,000: > t1 = datetime.min.replace(tzinfo=timezone.max) t2 = datetime.max.replace(tzinfo=timezone.min) t1.utctimetuple().tm_year > 0 t2.utctimetuple().tm_year > 1 > > Most if not all functions consuming timetuples are not designed to > handle years beyond and such timetuples cannot be converted back > to datetime. > > I would like to make utctimetuple() method to raise OverflowError on > values like t1 or t2 above. These values are most certainly a mistake > in application ad it is better to detect them earlier before they make > their way into system functions that cannot handle them. > > See issues 9005 and 6608 on the tracker. > > http://bugs.python.org/issue9005 > http://bugs.python.org/issue6608 > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
On Jun 18, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 6/18/2010 6:51 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: >> There has been a disappointing >> lack of bug reports across the board for 3.x. > > Here is one from this week involving the interaction of array and bytearray. > It needs a comment from someone who can understand the C-API based patch, > which is beyond me. > http://bugs.python.org/issue8990 I'll take a look at this one. Raymond P.S. For those who are interested, here is the story on BeautifulSoup: http://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/3.1-problems.html ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Year 0 and year 10,000 in timetuple
On Jun 19, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: But what if they are used intentionally as "impossible" or sentinel values? That would be another reason not to produce them accidently. Note that I am proposing disallowing production of out of range years from valid datetime objects, not consumption of them if that is allowed anywhere. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
After reading the discussion in the previous thread, signed in to #python and verified that the intro message starts with a lie about python3. I also verified that the official #python site links to "Python Commandment Don't use Python 3… yet". The excuse that the negative commandment site is not part of the official site is does not wash. The #python site maintainer choose that as the authoritative word on the topic "On using Python 2.x or Python 3.x". Since a fair, half-intelligent person would know that the usability of Python3 depends on the user, this all strikes as conscious sabotage. To me, this, along with other reports, is really ugly. I do not wish to fight such people; but I would rather ask python3 questions in a pro- rather than anti-python3 atmosphere. #python is certainly not a place that I would refer new people to. Given that the 'owners' of #python have been asked and refuse to remove their negative-opinion-stated-as-leading-headline-fact, it seems to me that we need a separate #python3 channel. The topic could be "Welcome to discussion of Python3, the latest, greated version of Python." The first link might be to the current stable Python3 docs. Hence the '!' in the subject line. HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the '?' that follows. What do others think? ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little > idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence the > '?' that follows. > > What do others think? Sure, this is a good idea. Technically speaking, this is extremely easy. Somebody needs to "/msg chanserv register #python3" and that's about it. (In this case, that "someone" may need to be Brett Cannon, since he is the official group contact for Freenode regarding Python-related channels.) Practically speaking, you will need a group of at least a dozen contributors, each in a different timezone, who sit there all day answering questions :). Otherwise the ownership of the channel is just a signpost pointing at an empty room. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > After reading the discussion in the previous thread, signed in to #python > and verified that the intro message starts with a lie about python3. I also > verified that the official #python site links to "Python Commandment Don't > use Python 3… yet". The excuse that the negative commandment site is not > part of the official site is does not wash. The #python site maintainer > choose that as the authoritative word on the topic "On using Python 2.x or > Python 3.x". > > Since a fair, half-intelligent person would know that the usability of > Python3 depends on the user, this all strikes as conscious sabotage. > > To me, this, along with other reports, is really ugly. I do not wish to > fight such people; but I would rather ask python3 questions in a pro- rather > than anti-python3 atmosphere. #python is certainly not a place that I would > refer new people to. > > Given that the 'owners' of #python have been asked and refuse to remove > their negative-opinion-stated-as-leading-headline-fact, it seems to me that > we need a separate #python3 channel. The topic could be "Welcome to > discussion of Python3, the latest, greated version of Python." The first > link might be to the current stable Python3 docs. Hence the '!' in the > subject line. > > HoweverI have very little experience with IRC and consequently have little > idea what getting a permanent, owned, channel like #python entails. Hence > the '?' that follows. > > What do others think? Seems like it turns a disagreement into a power struggle that python-dev is unlikely to win. If people here were interested in the irc, the irc culture would never have become as disconnected from the core group as it has, and even the most impassioned call isn't going to build an active community overnight. Furthermore, if #python has 200 people in it and #python3 is a ghost town, they can just tell anybody asking a python3 question to go to #python3 and snicker, reinforcing the widely held belief that python3 itself is a failure. It also runs the risk of hardening their existing position, and in any event begins the process of fracturing the community at a point where 3.x is probably not going to come out on top. Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, but practically I see very little that can be done to rectify the situation at this point. Geremy Condra ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote: > Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, but > practically I see very little that can be done to rectify the situation at > this > point. Here's something you can do: port libraries to python 3 and make the ecosystem viable. It's as simple as that. Nobody on #python has an ideological axe to grind, they just want to tell users to use tools which actually solve their problems. (Well, unless you think that "helping users" is ideological axe-grinding, in which case I think you may want to re-examine your own premises.) If Python 3 had all the features and libraries as Python 2, and ran in all the same places (for example, as Stephen Thorne reminded me when I asked him about this, the oldest supported version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux...) then it would be an equally viable answer on IRC. It's going to take a lot of work to get it to that point. Even if you write code, of course, it's too much work for one person to fill the whole gap. Have some patience. The PSF is funding these efforts, and more library authors are porting all the time. Eventually, resistance in forums like Freenode's #python will disappear. But you can't make it go away by wishing it away, you have to get rid of the cause. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote: > Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, This is so profoundly wrong on so many levels it is hard to know how to respond. Raymond ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > This is so profoundly wrong on so many levels it is hard to know how to > respond. C'mon, Raymond, that's not any more helpful. Geremy wasn't trying to argue for that course of action; he was expression his frustration with the culture that's developed in #python. There's nothing wrong with frustration, and there's nothing wrong with expressing those -- or any -- feelings. Indeed, I'm happy that folks are blowing off a bit of steam here instead of doing something silly in public. Let's all try to simmer down here a little bit and cut each other some slack: this is a frustration situation, and we're not going to help it by heaping more fuel on the fire. Jacob ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:55:29 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > If you want to do Python 3 a favor, > make sure that they understand that Python 3 is *not* an "upgrade" of > Python 2. [...] > Python 3 is a Python-2-like language, but even though it's built on > the same design principles, and uses nearly identical syntax, there > are fundamental differences. And it is *very* young. So it's a new > language and should be approached in the same way as any new > language. I haven't written any large projects in Python3, so take this with a grain of salt, but I just don't see that Python3 is a "new language" as most people understand the term. It might be splitting hairs, but I see it as a new dialect *at worst*, and probably not even that, in the sense that any half decent human coder who can read Python 2.x code should be able to make sense of Python 3.x code, and vice versa. As I see it, the changes to the language and syntax between 2.x and 3.x are much smaller than those between 1.x to 2.x: Python 2.x introduced a brand new object model (new style classes). Python 3.x does not. Python 2.x introduced radically new syntax, namely list comprehensions, while 3.x merely extends the same idea to set and dict comprehensions. Python 2.x introduced lexical scoping AND closures. Python 3.x does nothing as radical. Python 2.x introduced a new (to Python) programming model, namely iterators, complete with TWO extensions to syntax (generator functions including yield, generator expressions), *and* then went and made yield a function so as to introduce coroutines as well. Python 3.x merely uses iterators in more places. Python 2.x introduced Unicode strings. Python 3.x merely makes them the default. The only major difference is that Python 3 takes away as well as adding, but even there, Python 2 did the same, e.g. there is no provision to get the old scoping behaviour except to go back and use 2.1 or older. Frankly, I believe that pushing the meme that "Python 3 is different" is a strategic mistake. People hate and fear change. I should know this. I resisted Python 2.x and stuck with 1.5 until Python 2.3 was released, and then was amazed at how *easy* the transition was. Of course, I wasn't using third party libraries that hadn't been ported to 2.3, if I had my experience would have been different. It's bad enough to have to tell people "Python 3 is currently lacking some critical libraries, particularly third-party libraries" without also telling them (wrongly IMO) "oh, and it's a new language too". -- Steven D'Aprano ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:13:34 am Tres Seaver wrote: > > I guess tutorial welcome, rather than patch welcome then ;) > > The only folks who can write the tutorial are the ones who have > already drunk the koolaid. Note that I've been making my living with > Python for about twelve years now, and would *like* to use Python3, > but can't, yet, and therefore haven't taken the first sip. You emphatically say you would "like" to use Python3, but describe those who already have as having drunk the Koolaid. Comparing those who can and have successfully moved to Python3 with the Jonestown cult mass-suicide doesn't really strike me as a sign that you want to join them. -- Steven D'Aprano ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Year 0 and year 10,000 in timetuple
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > On Jun 19, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> But what if they are used intentionally as "impossible" or sentinel >> values? > That would be another reason not to produce them accidently. Note that I am > proposing disallowing production of out of range years from valid datetime > objects, not consumption of them if that is allowed anywhere. OK. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ?
On 6/19/2010 8:56 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote: > >> Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of >> #python, but >> practically I see very little that can be done to rectify the >> situation at this >> point. Given the experiences you reported, I can understand that sentiment, but I explicitly disclaimed any intent to fight or power struggle. > Here's something you can do: port libraries to python 3 and make the > ecosystem viable. > > It's as simple as that. Nobody on #python has an ideological axe to > grind, Then why are they grinding an anti-Python3 axe? As I explained in my original post, I did not take anyone's word for it, but verified for myself that they are indeed doing so and why I thought so. There are people who are opposed to Python3 and have the fantasy that if it fails, the devs would continue to pile new features, sometimes duplicative features into 2.x and never remove anything. They do not care that this would make the language harder and harder for new learners. However, I will consider taking your claim at face value and, ignoring the insulting login message and site, try a Python3 question and see what response I get. > they just want to tell users to use tools which actually solve > their problems. But that is not what they are doing. Python3 solved many of *my* problems with Python2, and there they are, commanding me and potential readers of my book-in-progress not to use it. If they wanted to help people make an intelligent choice between Python2 and Python3, they would point people to a discussion of the pros and cons of each. There have been several posted on python-list. Anyone who posted either "Do not use Python3" or "Do not use Python2" as a sweeping answer to a generic enquiry about 2 versus 3 might rightfully be blasted as a troll. > If Python 3 had all the features and libraries as Python 2, Python3 has several features that Python2 does not. To me, nearly all the deletions and changes make the language better, much better, for *my* purposes. However, I am glad that the PSF exists to make all versions of Python available indefinitely for anyone who has need of them. I would not dream of saying "Python2: do not use it" to anyone except in response to a question about a specific problem solved in Python3 and not in Python2. Terry Jan Reedy ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Python Library Support in 3.x (Was: email package status in 3.X)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Simon de Vlieger wrote: > As for the potentially harmful text on Python 3 which is included on the > python-commandments website I do get the hint that it might not be clear > enough that the text does not apply to people who are porting libraries. > This is a complaint I have heard before and to which I will take affirmative > action by explicitly adding text to clarify that. I just read that page, and I believe it could do with a little refinement even from an application developer point of view. Specifically, rather than "Why shouldn't I use it, yet?", a more positive phrasing would be "Should I use it, yet?" or "Is Python 3 ready for me, yet?". And then suggest to app developers that they check the status of Py3k support for libraries they need or think they will need, as these days many of them will provide a 3.x compatible version. Staying on 2.x for now is certainly a viable choice - there's a reason that backports to 2.7 have been a prominent python-dev activity for the last year or two. With that nearly out the door, the focus will switch more to Py3k. Cheers, Nick. P.S. wind the clock back 12 months or so, and I think the page as it currently stands would have been perfectly good advice to app developers. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > Let's all try to simmer down here a little bit and cut each other some > slack: this is a frustration situation, and we're not going to help it > by heaping more fuel on the fire. The other thing to keep in mind is that there was a time when what the #python folks are still saying *wasn't wrong*. Yes, their advice is too negative for the situation as it stands now. But go back 12 or 18 months and their description would have been far more apt. It sounds like they're happy to update the relevant pages to provide a more balanced perspective now, and that's the important point. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] #Python3 ! ? (was Python Library Support in 3.x)
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2010, at 5:39 PM, geremy condra wrote: >> Bottom line, what I'd really like to do is kick them all off of #python, > > This is so profoundly wrong on so many levels it is hard to know how to > respond. Alright, so, yeah- I said it in the heat of the moment and shouldn't have. I apologize. I just hate having to explain to folks that don't know any better that #python doesn't represent the opinions of the people who actually develop python, and I'm going to STFU before I get sucked into this again. Geremy Condra ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
