On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 06:27:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 18:14 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > What about users who are depending on Python 2.3? Do they just lose?
> > Users who depend on obsolete software always lose when the bar moves. I
> > don't find th
On Friday 29 December 2006 03:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It was? I don't remember this... I certainly wanted to make sure etch
> didn't release with ancient, lingering versions of python like 2.1 and
> 2.2, but from a release POV I never had strong feelings about getting
> rid of python 2.3, whi
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 18:14 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > What about users who are depending on Python 2.3? Do they just lose?
>
> Users who depend on obsolete software always lose when the bar moves. I
> don't find that a compelling reason to keep python2.3 around for another
> release cycle
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 02:21:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> > > etch. This forc
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:38:05AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
> number of supported python versions for the next stable release.
It was? I don't remember this... I certainly wanted to make sure etch
didn't release with ancient,
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
> number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
> did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]). To reduce that
> count we do have to drop 2.3 (
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
> all as an excuse for lazy debian maintainers depending on python for
> not following upstream python development.
Are you calling me lazy for not fixing a bug that you
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:38:05AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
> number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
> did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]).
Actually, four: 2.4 is also in sarge (ma
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> > > etch. This forces every package to use the new version.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What about users who are depending on Python 2.3? Do they just lose?
> It seems to me that for things like this, our releases should always
> have the next-oldest version as an option for those users.
They can continue to use Sarge.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:51 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> > etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
> > too late in the re
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:17:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
> too late in the release cycle to be risking regressions in this way?
The python te
Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 01:25 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>>> The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
>>> etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
>>> too late in the release cy
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 01:25 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> > The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> > etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
> > too late in the release cycle to be risking regressions in
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> The python team has apparently decreed that python 2.3 will not be in
> etch. This forces every package to use the new version. Surely it is
> too late in the release cycle to be risking regressions in this way?
"every package" = gnucash
please could you provide de
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:42:18AM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-15 02:26]:
>
> > A version of python2.3 that sets the default python version to 2.3 has
> > been accepted into testing. It should now be safe to upload python
> > packages that were pr
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-15 02:26]:
> A version of python2.3 that sets the default python version to 2.3 has
> been accepted into testing. It should now be safe to upload python
> packages that were previously in a mini-freeze.
Good work. Congratulations to all the people invo
17 matches
Mail list logo
