Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?

2008-12-20 Thread Tristan Seligmann
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a > > much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well > > bzr... > > > > (note: I use bzr for all of my other projects, so I have a vested interest)

Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?

2008-12-20 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Monty Taylor wrote: > /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a > much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well > bzr... unfortunatelt I don't know why they use bzr as it is really ugly to use (that's just my subjective opinion, please don't star

Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?

2008-12-20 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:43:19PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > Monty Taylor wrote: > > /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a > > much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well > > bzr... > unfortunatelt I don't know why they use bzr Because

Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?

2008-12-20 Thread Monty Taylor
Steve Langasek wrote: > >> (that's just my subjective opinion, please don't start a flame war now) > > It's a rather strongly worded opinion; if you want to avoid flame wars, you > might find it helpful to bring specific criticisms to the table instead of > just declaring a solution "ugly". :

Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?

2008-12-20 Thread Ondrej Certik
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:43:19PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: >> Monty Taylor wrote: >> > /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a >> > much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well >> >

Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?

2008-12-20 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:43:19PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: >> Monty Taylor wrote: >>> /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a >>> much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well >>> bzr... > >> unfortunatelt I don't kn

Re: ITP: Name for "real" python-pgsql module

2008-12-20 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Paweł Tęcza wrote: > So, I'm affraid that packaging of python-pypgsql module is necessary > in that situation. I'm not a Python programmer and don't want to change > the sources. Well.. you could ask upstream. Actually I'd vote against adding just another PG binding as the others implement the DB