Re: [Python-Dev] Goodbye
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:16:52 -0400 Jack Diederich wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Mark Lawrence > wrote: > > I'm rather sad to have been sacked, but such is life. I won't be doing any > > more work on the bug tracker for obvious reasons, but hope that you who have > > managed to keep your voluntary jobs manage to keep Python going. > > Umm, what? You mean http://bugs.python.org/issue2180 ? > > """ Mark, please stop closing these based on age. > The needs to be a determination whether this > is a valid bug. If so, then a patch is needed. > If not, it can be closed.""" > > Am I missing something? Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because nobody would answer his message on a short delay) have happened multiple times - despite people opposing, obviously -, and we decided that it was better to remove his tracker privileges since his contribution has not really been productive for us. There was a whole python-dev thread some time (weeks? months?) ago where several of us already tried to suggest more fruitful ways of contributing, suggestions which weren't received very welcomingly AFAIR. Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed if we want to give privileges early on. (and the amount of mentoring needed can vary wildly from one person to another) 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] Supporting raw bytes data in urllib.parse.* (was Re: Polymorphic best practices)
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andrew McNamara wrote: >>Yeah, that's the original reasoning that had me leaning towards the >>parallel API approach. If I seem to be changing my mind a lot in this >>thread it's because I'm genuinely torn between the desire to make it >>easier to port existing 2.x code to 3.x by making the current API >>polymorphic and the fear that doing so will reintroduce some of the >>exact same bytes/text confusion that the bytes/str split is trying to >>get rid of. > > I don't think polymorphic API's do anyone any favours in the long > run. My experience of the Py2 email API was that it would give the > developer false comfort, only to blow up when the app was in the hands > of users, and it didn't seem to matter how careful I was. Py3 has gone > the pure/strict route in the core, and I think libs should be consistent > with that choice. Developers will have work a little harder, but there > will be less surprises. There's an important distinction here though. Either change I could make to urllib.parse will still result in two distinct APIs. The only question is whether the new bytes->bytes APIs need to have a different spelling or not. Python 2.x is close to impossible to reliably test in this area because there's no programmatic way to tell the difference between encoded bytes and decoded text. In Python 3, while you can still get yourself in trouble by mixing encodings at the bytes level, you're almost never going to mistake bytes for text unless you go out of your way to support working that way. The structure of quote/unquote (which already contain implicit decode/encode steps to allow them to consume both bytes and strings with relative abandon and have done since 3.0) may cause us problems in the long run, but polymorphic APIs where the type of the input is the same as the type of the output shouldn't be any more dangerous than if those same APIs used a different spelling to operate on bytes. 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] Goodbye
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because > nobody would answer his message on a short delay) have happened > multiple times - despite people opposing, obviously -, and we decided > that it was better to remove his tracker privileges since his > contribution has not really been productive for us. > > There was a whole python-dev thread some time (weeks? months?) ago where > several of us already tried to suggest more fruitful ways of > contributing, suggestions which weren't received very welcomingly AFAIR. > > Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple > factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed > if we want to give privileges early on. > (and the amount of mentoring needed can vary wildly from one person to > another) I still prefer the "trust but monitor" approach over excessively high barriers to entry, but we do need to recognise that one consequence of that approach is that we *will* get into situations where we need to tell people "thank you for your contributions, but we think, on balance, we will be better off if you don't contribute in this way any more". Mark *did* do quite a bit of good in his time with tracker privileges. A number of lingering issues that would have otherwise continued lingering did indeed get closed. That work is still appreciated, even if it was ultimately deemed by the other tracker admins not to be sufficient to balance out the hassles created by his aggressive stance towards closing older issues (which, while unloved, are not automatically invalid). If this had happened *without* the prior discussion regarding more appropriate handling of tracker issues, then I would have an issue with it. However, given that the first reaction was to provide additional mentoring, with revocation of privileges only happening when the problems continued, that seems to me like the way this process is *meant* to work. Regards, 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] Supporting raw bytes data in urllib.parse.* (was Re: Polymorphic best practices)
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Neil Hodgson writes: > > > Over time, the set of trail bytes used has expanded - in GB18030 > > digits are possible although many of the most important characters > > for parsing such as ''' "#%&.?/''' are still safe as they may not > > be trail bytes in the common double-byte character sets. > > That's just not true. Many double-byte character sets in use are > based on ISO-2022, which allows the whole GL repertoire to be used. > > Perhaps you're thinking about variable-width encodings like Shift JIS > and Big5, where I believe that restriction on trailing bytes for > double-byte characters holds. However, 7-bit encodings with control > sequences remain common in several contexts, at least in Japan and > Korea. In particular, I can't say how frequent it is, especially > nowadays, but I have seen ISO-2022-JP in URLs "on the wire". Notably, utf-16 and utf-32 make no promises regarding avoidance of ASCII character codes in trail bytes - only utf-8 is guaranteed to be compatible with parsing as if it were ASCII (and even then, you need to be careful only to split the string at known ASCII characters rather than at arbitrary points). The known-ASCII-incompatible multibyte encodings I came up with when I reviewed the list in the codecs module docs the other day were: CP932 (the example posted here that prompted me to embark on this check in the first place) UTF-7 UTF-16 UTF-32 shift-JIS big5 iso-2022-* EUC-CN/KR/TW The only known-ASCII-compatible multibyte encodings I found were UTF-8 and EUC-JP (all of the non-EBCDIC single byte encodings appeared to be ASCII compatible though) I didn't check any of the other CP* encodings though, since I already had plenty of examples to show that the assumption of ASCII compatibility isn't likely to be valid in general unless there is some other constraint (such as the RFCs for safely encoding URLs to an octet-sequence). 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] Goodbye
On 9/21/2010 7:58 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > I'm rather sad to have been sacked, but such is life. I won't be doing > any more work on the bug tracker for obvious reasons, but hope that you > who have managed to keep your voluntary jobs manage to keep Python going. > > Kindest regards. > > Mark Lawrence. > Mark: Whatever the situation vis a vis the bug tracker, thank you for caring enough about Python to put in the time that you have. If you didn't care you would not have done all that hard work, and I hope you can find other ways to contribute further to Python's success. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 DjangoCon US September 7-9, 2010http://djangocon.us/ See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ ___ 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] Goodbye
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because >> nobody would answer his message on a short delay) have happened >> multiple times - despite people opposing, obviously -, and we decided >> that it was better to remove his tracker privileges since his >> contribution has not really been productive for us. >> >> There was a whole python-dev thread some time (weeks? months?) ago where I think it was the thread "No response to posts" started (by Mark) on July 31. >> several of us already tried to suggest more fruitful ways of >> contributing, suggestions which weren't received very welcomingly AFAIR. Yup. In that thread (and others) I see lots of evidence where Mark responded very negatively (from "I disagree entirely" to "I find this response quite pathetic") when people explained how we treat the tracker, and stuck to his guns no matter how many people tried to explain that he should stop. His attitude can be summarized by his "Fly back at me if you like. I don't care about me. I don't care about you. I do care about Python." Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't want to go into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues that are beyond what this community can deal with. >> Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple >> factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed >> if we want to give privileges early on. >> (and the amount of mentoring needed can vary wildly from one person to >> another) > > I still prefer the "trust but monitor" approach over excessively high > barriers to entry, but we do need to recognise that one consequence of > that approach is that we *will* get into situations where we need to > tell people "thank you for your contributions, but we think, on > balance, we will be better off if you don't contribute in this way any > more". > > Mark *did* do quite a bit of good in his time with tracker privileges. Right, that was my impression from the issues he touched on which I happened to be subscribed. > A number of lingering issues that would have otherwise continued > lingering did indeed get closed. That work is still appreciated, even > if it was ultimately deemed by the other tracker admins not to be > sufficient to balance out the hassles created by his aggressive stance > towards closing older issues (which, while unloved, are not > automatically invalid). How and how often was Mark reminded about this? > If this had happened *without* the prior discussion regarding more > appropriate handling of tracker issues, then I would have an issue > with it. However, given that the first reaction was to provide > additional mentoring, with revocation of privileges only happening > when the problems continued, that seems to me like the way this > process is *meant* to work. Where was the decision to revoke privileges discussed? Not on any mailing list that I am subscribed to. Was Mark given an ultimatum? Given that this came out rather unfortunately (even if the end result is the best that could have happened) I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is sufficient. -- --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] Goodbye
If you guys continue to make a public jury of this, no one else will want to step into that role > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou >> wrote: >>> Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because >>> nobody would answer his message on a short delay) have happened >>> multiple times - despite people opposing, obviously -, and we decided >>> that it was better to remove his tracker privileges since his >>> contribution has not really been productive for us. >>> >>> There was a whole python-dev thread some time (weeks? months?) ago >>> where > > I think it was the thread "No response to posts" started (by Mark) on July > 31. > >>> several of us already tried to suggest more fruitful ways of >>> contributing, suggestions which weren't received very welcomingly >>> AFAIR. > > Yup. In that thread (and others) I see lots of evidence where Mark > responded very negatively (from "I disagree entirely" to "I find this > response quite pathetic") when people explained how we treat the > tracker, and stuck to his guns no matter how many people tried to > explain that he should stop. > > His attitude can be summarized by his "Fly back at me if you like. I > don't care about me. I don't care about you. I do care about > Python." > > Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't want to go > into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues that are beyond what > this community can deal with. > >>> Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple >>> factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed >>> if we want to give privileges early on. >>> (and the amount of mentoring needed can vary wildly from one person to >>> another) >> >> I still prefer the "trust but monitor" approach over excessively high >> barriers to entry, but we do need to recognise that one consequence of >> that approach is that we *will* get into situations where we need to >> tell people "thank you for your contributions, but we think, on >> balance, we will be better off if you don't contribute in this way any >> more". >> >> Mark *did* do quite a bit of good in his time with tracker privileges. > > Right, that was my impression from the issues he touched on which I > happened to be subscribed. > >> A number of lingering issues that would have otherwise continued >> lingering did indeed get closed. That work is still appreciated, even >> if it was ultimately deemed by the other tracker admins not to be >> sufficient to balance out the hassles created by his aggressive stance >> towards closing older issues (which, while unloved, are not >> automatically invalid). > > How and how often was Mark reminded about this? > >> If this had happened *without* the prior discussion regarding more >> appropriate handling of tracker issues, then I would have an issue >> with it. However, given that the first reaction was to provide >> additional mentoring, with revocation of privileges only happening >> when the problems continued, that seems to me like the way this >> process is *meant* to work. > > Where was the decision to revoke privileges discussed? Not on any > mailing list that I am subscribed to. Was Mark given an ultimatum? > > Given that this came out rather unfortunately (even if the end result > is the best that could have happened) I would recommend that in the > future more attention is paid to "documenting" publicly that someone's > being booted out was inevitable, by an exchange of messages on > python-dev (or python-committers if we want to limit distribution). > And no, I don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is > sufficient. > > -- > --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/darren%40ontrenet.com > ___ 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] Goodbye
2010/9/22 Guido van Rossum : > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> A number of lingering issues that would have otherwise continued >> lingering did indeed get closed. That work is still appreciated, even >> if it was ultimately deemed by the other tracker admins not to be >> sufficient to balance out the hassles created by his aggressive stance >> towards closing older issues (which, while unloved, are not >> automatically invalid). > > How and how often was Mark reminded about this? I believe that mailing list thread was the main thrust. However, many issues which he closed were reopened with a message saying why they shouldn't be closed. > >> If this had happened *without* the prior discussion regarding more >> appropriate handling of tracker issues, then I would have an issue >> with it. However, given that the first reaction was to provide >> additional mentoring, with revocation of privileges only happening >> when the problems continued, that seems to me like the way this >> process is *meant* to work. > > Where was the decision to revoke privileges discussed? Not on any > mailing list that I am subscribed to. Was Mark given an ultimatum? Indeed, it was on IRC. > > Given that this came out rather unfortunately (even if the end result > is the best that could have happened) I would recommend that in the > future more attention is paid to "documenting" publicly that someone's > being booted out was inevitable, by an exchange of messages on > python-dev (or python-committers if we want to limit distribution). > And no, I don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is > sufficient. We'll note that for the future. -- Regards, Benjamin ___ 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] Goodbye
On 22/09/2010 15:33, [email protected] wrote: If you guys continue to make a public jury of this, no one else will want to step into that role One of the perhaps-downsides of projects with an open community and open development processes is that any dirty-laundry there might be tends to get washed in public. Difficult decisions will always be accompanied by a measure of soul-searching and disagreement. I guess this is what you mean by "public jury". I think reaching decisions like this in private, without public discussion, would be worse (decisions could only be made by a 'secret cabal' with much less accountability and opportunity to improve). I don't think this kind of process can ever be easy (unless we eliminate the involvement of humans in Python development altogether), but we do have a process. Particularly bearing in mind the comments of Guido on the topic we can further improve the process. I too found Mark's contributions to issues I'm involved in helpful, but I understand the decision entirely. We all need to be able to work together and despite best efforts that just wasn't working out. I also wish Mark the best for the future and hope that he is still able to find some way to contribute to Python. All the best, Michael Foord On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because nobody would answer his message on a short delay) have happened multiple times - despite people opposing, obviously -, and we decided that it was better to remove his tracker privileges since his contribution has not really been productive for us. There was a whole python-dev thread some time (weeks? months?) ago where I think it was the thread "No response to posts" started (by Mark) on July 31. several of us already tried to suggest more fruitful ways of contributing, suggestions which weren't received very welcomingly AFAIR. Yup. In that thread (and others) I see lots of evidence where Mark responded very negatively (from "I disagree entirely" to "I find this response quite pathetic") when people explained how we treat the tracker, and stuck to his guns no matter how many people tried to explain that he should stop. His attitude can be summarized by his "Fly back at me if you like. I don't care about me. I don't care about you. I do care about Python." Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't want to go into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues that are beyond what this community can deal with. Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed if we want to give privileges early on. (and the amount of mentoring needed can vary wildly from one person to another) I still prefer the "trust but monitor" approach over excessively high barriers to entry, but we do need to recognise that one consequence of that approach is that we *will* get into situations where we need to tell people "thank you for your contributions, but we think, on balance, we will be better off if you don't contribute in this way any more". Mark *did* do quite a bit of good in his time with tracker privileges. Right, that was my impression from the issues he touched on which I happened to be subscribed. A number of lingering issues that would have otherwise continued lingering did indeed get closed. That work is still appreciated, even if it was ultimately deemed by the other tracker admins not to be sufficient to balance out the hassles created by his aggressive stance towards closing older issues (which, while unloved, are not automatically invalid). How and how often was Mark reminded about this? If this had happened *without* the prior discussion regarding more appropriate handling of tracker issues, then I would have an issue with it. However, given that the first reaction was to provide additional mentoring, with revocation of privileges only happening when the problems continued, that seems to me like the way this process is *meant* to work. Where was the decision to revoke privileges discussed? Not on any mailing list that I am subscribed to. Was Mark given an ultimatum? Given that this came out rather unfortunately (even if the end result is the best that could have happened) I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is sufficient. -- --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/darren%40ontrenet.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Goodbye
On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Where was the decision to revoke privileges discussed? Not on any > mailing list that I am subscribed to. It was on IRC. > Was Mark given an ultimatum? I sent him a nicely worded email. The tracker privs were set back to the normal level which most participants have (can comment, submit patches, etc. but not close or reprioritize). That would have allowed him to contribute and participate. If that had worked out, it would have been easy to add back close/reprioritize capabilities No one needed to be hurt. Unfortunately, he responded with drama and another dev shut-off his tracker access entirely. 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] Goodbye
Guido van Rossum writes: > I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to > "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was > inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or > python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I > don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is sufficient. +1 on explaining "what" and "why" where the committers can see it, and +1 on limiting distribution. The one time I lifted someone's privileges that's the way I did it (by luck, mostly). In hindsight, the fact that it was all done in plain sight of the committers made it easy for us to put the incident behind us. The fact that it was only visible to the committers made it easier mend the relationship later. ___ 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] Goodbye
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:29:23 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote: > Guido van Rossum writes: > > > I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to > > "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was > > inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or > > python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I > > don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is sufficient. > > +1 on explaining "what" and "why" where the committers can see it, and > +1 on limiting distribution. > > The one time I lifted someone's privileges that's the way I did it (by > luck, mostly). In hindsight, the fact that it was all done in plain > sight of the committers made it easy for us to put the incident behind > us. The fact that it was only visible to the committers made it > easier mend the relationship later. I guess python-committers would have been the best recipient indeed. Sorry for that. 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] Goodbye
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Guido van Rossum writes: > > > I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to > > "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was > > inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or > > python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I > > don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is sufficient. > > +1 on explaining "what" and "why" where the committers can see it, and > +1 on limiting distribution. Agreed on both counts. > The one time I lifted someone's privileges that's the way I did it (by > luck, mostly). In hindsight, the fact that it was all done in plain > sight of the committers made it easy for us to put the incident behind > us. The fact that it was only visible to the committers made it > easier mend the relationship later. I understand the desire to keep dirty laundry in. I would like to keep it in too. Unfortunately the offending person in this case chose not to; I will not speculate about his motivation. This is not unusual; I can recall several incidents over the past few years (all completely different in every detail of course) where someone blew up publicly and there wasn't much of a chance to keep the incident under wraps. I see it as the risk of doing business in public -- which to me still beats the risk of doing business in back rooms many times over. -- --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
[Python-Dev] Some changes to logging for 3.2
Hi all, I'm planning to make some smallish changes to logging in Python 3.2, please see http://plumberjack.blogspot.com/2010/09/improved-queuehandler-queuelistener.html If you're interested, I'd be grateful for any feedback you can give. Regards, Vinay Sajip ___ 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] Goodbye
> Given that this came out rather unfortunately (even if the end result > is the best that could have happened) I would recommend that in the > future more attention is paid to "documenting" publicly that someone's > being booted out was inevitable, by an exchange of messages on > python-dev (or python-committers if we want to limit distribution). > And no, I don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is > sufficient. While the community should be informed in public, I think that the actual revocation of privileges should happen in private. People getting such a "blue letter" often react overly negative, and then regret that their response is recorded in the public. The only downside of this approach is that people may feel that this is a unilateral decision by one committer, then appeal to you (I'm sure you recall cases that went that way :-). Also, I think it would be better to ask the contributor to step back "on his own" (acknowledging that this isn't really voluntarily), instead of revoking privileges and then informing about that decision. 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
[Python-Dev] Advice sought on memory allocation latency reduction C1X standard proposal
Dear Python Devs, I am hoping to gain feedback on an ISO C1X/C++ standard library proposal I hope to submit. It consists of a rationale (http://mallocv2.wordpress.com/) which shows how growth in RAM capacity is exponentially outgrowing the growth in RAM access speed. The consequences are profound: computer software which has always been written under the assumption of scarcity of RAM capacity will need to be retargeted to assume the scarcity of RAM access speed instead. The C1X proposal (http://mallocv2.wordpress.com/the-c-proposal-text/) enables four things of interest to Python: (i) aligned block resizing (ii) speculative in-place block resizing (iii) batch block allocation and (iv) the ability to reserve address space, thus avoiding the need to overallocate array storage. Aligned block resizing is especially useful to numpy. Where one has an array of aligned SSE vector quantities one cannot currently resize that block and guarantee that alignment will not be destroyed. With the new feature of non-relocating realloc() and being able to specify an alignment to realloc() one may avoid memory copying, and therefore reduce memory bandwidth utilisation and therefore overall memory access latencies. The ability to reserve address space and speculative in-place block resizing can be combined to allow Python to reserve an arbitrary amount of address space after the storage for an array object. Should the array then become extended, the speculative in-place block resizing can attempt to expand storage into that reserved space without having to relocate the contents of the storage. This again translates into much reduced memory copying as well as memory consumption, and once again reduces overall memory access latencies. Lastly, the batch allocation mechanism allows a sequence of allocations to be performed at once. I don't know of any attempts to have Python make use of similar functionality in Linux's system allocator, however Perl saw a 18% reduction in startup time (http://groups.google.com/group/perl-compiler/msg/31bca5297764002b). I am not familiar with Python's implementation outside working extensively with Boost.Python, so I was hoping that this list could advise me on what I might be forgetting, what problems there could be for Python with this design and/or any other general concerns and thoughts. I thank the list in advance for your time and consideration. Niall Douglas -- Technology & Consulting Services - ned Productions Limited. http://www.nedproductions.biz/. VAT reg: IE 9708311Q. Company no: 472909. ___ 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] Goodbye
Usual disclaimer: I am not a python-dev, just a lurker who sticks his 2c in sometimes... On 22Sep2010 07:17, Guido van Rossum wrote: | On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: | > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: | >> Simply, situations like the above (Mark closing a bug just because | >> nobody would answer his message on a short delay) have happened | >> multiple times - despite people opposing, obviously -, and we decided | >> that it was better to remove his tracker privileges since his | >> contribution has not really been productive for us. Which sounds like a genuine problem, but ... | >> There was a whole python-dev thread some time (weeks? months?) ago where | | I think it was the thread "No response to posts" started (by Mark) on July 31. | | >> several of us already tried to suggest more fruitful ways of | >> contributing, suggestions which weren't received very welcomingly AFAIR. | | Yup. In that thread (and others) I see lots of evidence where Mark | responded very negatively (from "I disagree entirely" to "I find this | response quite pathetic") when people explained how we treat the | tracker, and stuck to his guns no matter how many people tried to | explain that he should stop. | | His attitude can be summarized by his "Fly back at me if you like. I | don't care about me. I don't care about you. I do care about | Python." | | Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't want to go | into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues that are beyond what | this community can deal with. I've just read that thread. Mark doesn't sound that way to me. "I disagree entirely" is an entirely valid response, when backed up with argument, such as his immediately following sentence: Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree, but I can't see how having issues that have been sitting for years without any response at all ties in with "the current set up works reasonably well" "I find this response quite pathetic" does seem an overreaction to a single point clarification-type post. The "Fly back at me if you like. I don't care about me. I don't care about you. I do care about Python." quote I actually think this quite laudable in its way; he's expressing a commitment to getting things done, and a determination to focus on the core issue (response workflow, from the sounds of it) in the face of the emotional responses the disagreement will inevitably produce in the discussions. Again, a follow on statement from that same post: Further, issues don't have to be closed, but what has to happen is that any issue that get raised *MUST* have a response. That's a concrete objection to the status quo for certain old bugs, and one that applies just as well to me own personal email practices (I have a bunch of unreplied-to threads in my supposedly "priority" inbox; at least these days a mark the things needing a real reply so i can find them later even if I often don't get back to them). I'm not disputing the decision to revoke his priviledges; if he really was closing a lot of bugs that most devs don't think should be closed and could not be dissuaded from doing so I can't see an alternative. I'm just saying I think the tone if his responses in the thread cited isn't as negative to my eye as people are making out. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ 'Soup: This is the one that Kawasaki sent out pictures, that looks so beautiful. Yanagawa: Yes, everybody says it's beautiful - but many problems! 'Soup: But you are not part of the design team, you're just a test rider. Yanagawa: Yes. I just complain. - _Akira Yanagawa Sounds Off_ @ www.amasuperbike.com ___ 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] Some changes to logging for 3.2
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm planning to make some smallish changes to logging in Python 3.2, please > see > > http://plumberjack.blogspot.com/2010/09/improved-queuehandler-queuelistener.html > > If you're interested, I'd be grateful for any feedback you can give. Looks like a good idea to me - I have a (C++) logging system at work that pushes some of the I/O bound tasks out to a separate thread for similar reasons. To further reduce overhead, would it make sense for the signature of the QueueListener constructor to be (queue, *handlers)? (Providing the ability to add and remove handlers post-construction seems unnecessary, since you can add or remove new listeners to the original queue to get a similar effect without worrying about synchronisation of access to the list of handlers) 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] Goodbye
On 22/09/2010 16:44, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Guido van Rossum writes: > I would recommend that in the future more attention is paid to > "documenting" publicly that someone's being booted out was > inevitable, by an exchange of messages on python-dev (or > python-committers if we want to limit distribution). And no, I > don't think that IRC (where I suspect this happened) is sufficient. +1 on explaining "what" and "why" where the committers can see it, and +1 on limiting distribution. Agreed on both counts. The one time I lifted someone's privileges that's the way I did it (by luck, mostly). In hindsight, the fact that it was all done in plain sight of the committers made it easy for us to put the incident behind us. The fact that it was only visible to the committers made it easier mend the relationship later. I understand the desire to keep dirty laundry in. I would like to keep it in too. Unfortunately the offending person in this case chose not to; I will not speculate about his motivation. This is not unusual; I can recall several incidents over the past few years (all completely different in every detail of course) where someone blew up publicly and there wasn't much of a chance to keep the incident under wraps. I see it as the risk of doing business in public -- which to me still beats the risk of doing business in back rooms many times over. If you're referring to me I'm extremely offended. Yes or no? 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] Goodbye
On 9/22/2010 6:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: There was a whole python-dev thread some time (weeks? months?) ago where several of us already tried to suggest more fruitful ways of contributing, suggestions which weren't received very welcomingly AFAIR. There were two types of criticisms and suggestions, somewhat contradictory. The first type was something like 'Your tracker work is fine, but your pydev post berating others for not doing the same thing as you is not. Relax, do what you think is worthwhile, and let others decide what they will do." When I reiterated that in private email, he agreed with me and as far as I know he changed his behavior. The second type, which apparently included your response, began "Your tracker work is not all good. Change what your are doing ...". If the continuing disagreement and upset with his tracker (versus posting) behavior, to the point of possibly canceling admin privileges, had been brought up for instance on the committers list, I would have suggested to him that the low-hanging fruit had been picked (or discarded) and that a more careful approach was needed for the future. Would that have had any effect? I do not know. > Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed if we want to give privileges early on. (and the amount of mentoring needed can vary wildly from one person to another) Mentoring would be easier if there were clearer and more complete written guidelines. I was under the impression that this was being worked on. It would also be easier if it were clearer who is/are the deputed tracker authority/ies. Not everyone has the same idea about how to handle the various fields and processes. Who decides in cases of disagreement? -- 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] Goodbye
Yikes - Mark has done terrific work in some very demanding areas, & I'd hate to see him feel unwelcome. So that's my advice: find a way to smooth this over. You're welcome ;-) [Guido] >> ... >> I understand the desire to keep dirty laundry in. I would like to keep >> it in too. Unfortunately the offending person in this case chose not >> to; I will not speculate about his motivation. This is not unusual; I >> can recall several incidents over the past few years (all completely >> different in every detail of course) where someone blew up publicly >> and there wasn't much of a chance to keep the incident under wraps. I >> see it as the risk of doing business in public -- which to me still >> beats the risk of doing business in back rooms many times over. [Mark Lawrence] > If you're referring to me I'm extremely offended. Yes or no? Have to confess I can't see what's offensive in what Guido wrote there. If you're inclined to feel offended, how about going back to Guido's: Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't want to go into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues that are beyond what this community can deal with. Even I felt a bit offended by that one ;-) speaking-as-one-who-has-issues-no-community-can-deal-with-ly y'rs - tim ___ 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] Goodbye
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tim Peters wrote: > Yikes - Mark has done terrific work in some very demanding areas, & > I'd hate to see him feel unwelcome. So that's my advice: find a way > to smooth this over. You're welcome ;-) > > [Guido] >>> ... >>> I understand the desire to keep dirty laundry in. I would like to keep >>> it in too. Unfortunately the offending person in this case chose not >>> to; I will not speculate about his motivation. This is not unusual; I >>> can recall several incidents over the past few years (all completely >>> different in every detail of course) where someone blew up publicly >>> and there wasn't much of a chance to keep the incident under wraps. I >>> see it as the risk of doing business in public -- which to me still >>> beats the risk of doing business in back rooms many times over. > > [Mark Lawrence] >> If you're referring to me I'm extremely offended. Yes or no? > > Have to confess I can't see what's offensive in what Guido wrote > there. If you're inclined to feel offended, how about going back to > Guido's: > > Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't > want to go into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues > that are beyond what this community can deal with. > > Even I felt a bit offended by that one ;-) That was not one of my finer moments, and I apologize. -- --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] Goodbye
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 9/22/2010 6:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple > > factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed > > if we want to give privileges early on. > > (and the amount of mentoring needed can vary wildly from one person to > > another) > > Mentoring would be easier if there were clearer and more complete > written guidelines. I was under the impression that this was being > worked on. It would also be easier if it were clearer who is/are the Brett is planning to work on it. Because he is, I suspect everyone else is waiting for that, instead of working on it now. Just one of those things. (I believe his target is January-ish?) > deputed tracker authority/ies. Not everyone has the same idea about how > to handle the various fields and processes. Who decides in cases of > disagreement? We discussed this a while back and I don't think we really have a tracker BD. Brett and Martin come closest, but mostly we just sort of evolve a rough consensus. I think once Brett reduces that operating consensus to a written document things will be clearer. --David ___ 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] Goodbye
On 9/22/2010 8:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: [...] >> > >> >Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't >> >want to go into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues >> >that are beyond what this community can deal with. >> > >> > Even I felt a bit offended by that one ;-) > That was not one of my finer moments, and I apologize. So even after losing his tracker privileges Mark is still managing to find ways to improve the Python community ;-) regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 DjangoCon US September 7-9, 2010http://djangocon.us/ See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ ___ 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] Goodbye
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 18:24, R. David Murray wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: >> On 9/22/2010 6:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> > Now I understand that opinions over this may vary and involve multiple >> > factors, but I would suggest that at least a bit of mentoring is needed >> > if we want to give privileges early on. >> > (and the amount of mentoring needed can vary wildly from one person to >> > another) >> >> Mentoring would be easier if there were clearer and more complete >> written guidelines. I was under the impression that this was being >> worked on. It would also be easier if it were clearer who is/are the > > Brett is planning to work on it. Because he is, I suspect everyone else > is waiting for that, instead of working on it now. Just one of those > things. (I believe his target is January-ish?) Yep. I am planning on starting my two month PSF grant in January and the first thing on the agenda is a complete rewrite of the developer docs and moving them into the Doc/ directory (after that is managing code in Python 2/3 HOWTO and then after that most likely testing stuff, but maybe Python 3 stdlib fixes instead if that is deemed more important). -Brett > >> deputed tracker authority/ies. Not everyone has the same idea about how >> to handle the various fields and processes. Who decides in cases of >> disagreement? > > We discussed this a while back and I don't think we really have a tracker > BD. Brett and Martin come closest, but mostly we just sort of evolve > a rough consensus. I think once Brett reduces that operating consensus > to a written document things will be clearer. > > --David > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%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] Goodbye
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:18:39 am Tim Peters wrote: > Yikes - Mark has done terrific work in some very demanding areas, & > I'd hate to see him feel unwelcome. So that's my advice: find a > way to smooth this over. You're welcome ;-) I'd like to second that. Mark has been pushy, annoying and demanding, although he has his bad points too *grins*. Seriously, Mark has brought a remarkable amount of energy to the tracker, for good and bad. The good shouldn't give him a Get Out Of Jail Free card forever, but in the absence of any knowledge of what lead to Mark's tracker privileges being revoked, I have no objections in principle to giving him a second chance if the devs decide that is acceptable and Mark is willing. (Not that my objections carry much weight.) Either way, I would like to publicly thank Mark for his efforts and wish him the best for the future. [...] > Have to confess I can't see what's offensive in what Guido wrote > there. If you're inclined to feel offended, how about going back > to Guido's: > > Which to me sounds defiant and passive-aggressive. I don't > want to go into analyzing, but I expect that Mark has issues > that are beyond what this community can deal with. > > Even I felt a bit offended by that one ;-) I don't see why. Mark's emails often do sound defiant and passive-aggressive. Is that something we're supposed to ignore? And as for issues, Mark himself has explicitly and publicly mentioned them on this very list, and we *can't* deal with them. Nor should we be expected to. Mark has done good work, dealing with many issues in the tracker during a remarkably short time. But he's also managed to annoy and upset a number of people in a remarkably short time too. The long term health of Python depends more on the community than the existence of a few bugs more or less. -- 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] Tracker BD Was:Goodbye
On Sep 22, 2010, at 6:24 PM, R. David Murray wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: > >> deputed tracker authority/ies. Not everyone has the same idea about how >> to handle the various fields and processes. Who decides in cases of >> disagreement? > > We discussed this a while back and I don't think we really have a tracker > BD. Brett and Martin come closest, but mostly we just sort of evolve > a rough consensus. IMO, Benjamin and Antoine are the closest. They devote a substantial portion of their lives to Python and have been our most active contributors in the last year. They read almost every tracker post, read every check-in, and continuously monitor the IRC channel. 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
[Python-Dev] Moving the developer docs?
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > the first thing on the agenda is a complete rewrite of the developer > docs and moving them into the Doc/ directory I'd like to know why you think moving the developer docs into the CPython tree makes sense. My own thought here is that they're not specific to the version of Python, though some of the documentation deals with the group of specific branches being maintained. For me, keeping them in a separate space (like www.python.org/dev/) makes sense. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein ___ 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] Goodbye
Cameron Simpson writes: > I've just read that thread. Mark doesn't sound that way to me. "I > disagree entirely" is an entirely valid response, when backed up > with argument, such as his immediately following sentence: > > Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree, Agreeing to disagree *on actions* does not work with shared resources, and the tracker is a shared resource. It's not a valid response here. According to reports, his disagreement *did* extend to action. > "I find this response quite pathetic" does seem an overreaction to > a single point clarification-type post. The "Fly back at me if you > like. I don't care about me. I don't care about you. I do care > about Python." quote I actually think this quite laudable in its > way; he's expressing a commitment to getting things done, and a > determination to focus on the core issue (response workflow, from > the sounds of it) in the face of the emotional responses the > disagreement will inevitably produce in the discussions. Expressing a commitment and emotional discussion are not problems worthy of even thinking about changing privileges. The problem is that (according to reports) he *imposed* his opinion on all the other tracker workers by making changes to the public database (ie, closing bugs), after being told by several people that the consensus was otherwise. And did this several times. While this was not clearly expressed in several of the key posts in this thread, I suspect that this is what was meant by "other ways are more fruitful" and Guido's now retracted psychoanalytic comment. There is a delicate balance to be kept between "he who does the work makes the decisions" and "polluting the common pool." In this case, the balance was clearly upset. Triaging and closing bug reports are not the only functions of the tracker, and in fact they are subsidiary to actual bug-fixing work. It's pretty clear to me that if a triager disagrees with the priorities of the bug fixers, his only recourse is public discussion, and to do what he personally can to respond to issues. ___ 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] Moving the developer docs?
A discussion occurred (w/o me) on #python-dev where moving it to Doc/ would allow it to show up at docs.python.org to perhaps get more people involved. It also allows developers to contribute to the docs w/o having to get pydotorg commit rights. On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 21:29, Fred Drake wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> the first thing on the agenda is a complete rewrite of the developer >> docs and moving them into the Doc/ directory > > I'd like to know why you think moving the developer docs into the > CPython tree makes sense. > > My own thought here is that they're not specific to the version of > Python, though some of the documentation deals with the group of > specific branches being maintained. For me, keeping them in a > separate space (like www.python.org/dev/) makes sense. > > > -Fred > > -- > Fred L. Drake, Jr. > "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein > ___ 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] Tracker BD Was:Goodbye
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2010, at 6:24 PM, R. David Murray wrote: > >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: >> >>> deputed tracker authority/ies. Not everyone has the same idea about how >>> to handle the various fields and processes. Who decides in cases of >>> disagreement? >> >> We discussed this a while back and I don't think we really have a tracker >> BD. Brett and Martin come closest, but mostly we just sort of evolve >> a rough consensus. > > IMO, Benjamin and Antoine are the closest. They devote a substantial > portion of their lives to Python and have been our most active > contributors in the last year. They read almost every tracker post, > read every check-in, and continuously monitor the IRC channel. Off topic-er. Does anyone have scripts that pull data on how many committers commit or how many trac admins admin? I'm not asking for punitive reasons - I'd be the first against the wall - but I wouldn't mind graphing it. Power law, methinks. With big, confounding, and jumbley spikes in the Spring for PyCon. Likewise for mailing list subscriptions. Personally I've gone back and forth between subscribing to everything (-list -dev -commits -bugs -ideas, et al) and subscribing to almost nothing. -Jack ___ 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] Some changes to logging for 3.2
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes: > To further reduce overhead, would it make sense for the signature of > the QueueListener constructor to be (queue, *handlers)? Good suggestion - thanks. Regards, Vinay ___ 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] Tracker BD Was:Goodbye
Am 23.09.2010 07:32, schrieb Jack Diederich: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Raymond Hettinger > wrote: >> >> On Sep 22, 2010, at 6:24 PM, R. David Murray wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: >>> deputed tracker authority/ies. Not everyone has the same idea about how to handle the various fields and processes. Who decides in cases of disagreement? >>> >>> We discussed this a while back and I don't think we really have a tracker >>> BD. Brett and Martin come closest, but mostly we just sort of evolve >>> a rough consensus. >> >> IMO, Benjamin and Antoine are the closest. They devote a substantial >> portion of their lives to Python and have been our most active >> contributors in the last year. They read almost every tracker post, >> read every check-in, and continuously monitor the IRC channel. > > Off topic-er. Does anyone have scripts that pull data on how many > committers commit or how many trac admins admin? I'm not asking for > punitive reasons - I'd be the first against the wall - but I wouldn't > mind graphing it. Power law, methinks. With big, confounding, and > jumbley spikes in the Spring for PyCon. This should be easy to do with a hg repo such as the test conversion one on hg.python.org -- the "activity" extension already does the graphing, and I'm sure it can easily be tweaked to your liking. http://www.freehackers.org/thomas/2008/10/31/activity-extension-for-mercurial/ cheers, Georg -- Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less. Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out. ___ 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] Moving the developer docs?
That's right. It is true that it isn't branch-specific information, and that does cause a little bit of irritation for me too, but neither is Misc/developers.txt or Misc/maintainers.rst. Of course, we might consider a separate HG repository (I'm all in favor of many small repos, instead of a gigantic sandbox one). The downside is that I really like the developer docs at docs.python.org, and it would complicate the build process a bit. Georg Am 23.09.2010 06:45, schrieb Brett Cannon: > A discussion occurred (w/o me) on #python-dev where moving it to Doc/ > would allow it to show up at docs.python.org to perhaps get more > people involved. It also allows developers to contribute to the docs > w/o having to get pydotorg commit rights. > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 21:29, Fred Drake wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> the first thing on the agenda is a complete rewrite of the developer >>> docs and moving them into the Doc/ directory >> >> I'd like to know why you think moving the developer docs into the >> CPython tree makes sense. >> >> My own thought here is that they're not specific to the version of >> Python, though some of the documentation deals with the group of >> specific branches being maintained. For me, keeping them in a >> separate space (like www.python.org/dev/) makes sense. >> >> >> -Fred >> >> -- >> Fred L. Drake, Jr. >> "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein >> > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-python-dev%40m.gmane.org -- Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less. Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out. ___ 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
