On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 20:04, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Fine by me as long as people realize that if anything is questionable then
> the switch will not happen. Getting this right takes precedence over any
> deadline. And obviously we will need to do at least one live conversion on
> python.org hardwar
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 07:13, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I'd guess that the only way to keep those functional is to keep
> svn.python.org around in read-only mode.
No, actually: the idea (I think I floated it in the PEP, as well), is
that I can write a simple extension for hgweb that knows the mapping
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 17:17, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Do you have a key to the second column in that file? E.g. the difference
> between "strip" and "discard" is not clear to me. "strip partial"?
strip == discard. strip = remove, merged should be obvious, keep-clone
means we'll keep the branch, in a
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 00:09, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I would drop the roundup integration from the things that need to
> be done pre-migration - there currently is no svn integration, so
> not having it for hg is not a step backwards.
Yeah, I mean just the linking here.
> In the first sentenc
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 00:37, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Doesn't Mercurial support an Subversion bridge? Would it be possible to
> provide a /read-only/ copy of the hg branches for 2.4 (maybe), 2.5, 2.6, and
> 3.1? If so, then the release managers would simply have to cut their
> releases from the svn
Brett Cannon wrote:
I would very much like the 'k' dropped from the py3 name. It was a
funny joke when py3 was vaporware, now it is excess baggage which
only puzzles non-insiders and newcomers.
Is it really that confusing? I have never heard of anyone asking "what
is py3k?"
Do
> I see that George Brandl and Martin van Loewis seem to be accomodating
> your viewpoint, but I don't get the impression that either you (as the
> hg migration proponent) nor they (as core committers) realize how far
> apart your assumptions are.
Actually, I (probably) don't agree to a merge flo
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 07:13, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> I'd guess that the only way to keep those functional is to keep
>> svn.python.org around in read-only mode.
>
> No, actually: the idea (I think I floated it in the PEP, as well), is
> that I can write a simple extension
2009/7/3 Tarek Ziadé :
> You can give me a bitbucket account so I can give you write access to the
> repo,
> There are tests as long as you install Nose.
How do I get the tests to work? Just running nosetests gives an error
(probably because pkgutil is being imported from the stdlib, rather
than
2009/7/3 Tarek Ziadé :
> 2009/7/3 Paul Moore :
>> Does this sound sensible? Tarek, would you be OK with me attempting to
>> modify your prototype to support this protocol? Are there any tests
>> for PEP 376, so that I can confirm I haven't completely broken
>> something? If I can, I'll knock up som
2009/7/4 Paul Moore :
> 2009/7/3 Tarek Ziadé :
>> You can give me a bitbucket account so I can give you write access to the
>> repo,
>> There are tests as long as you install Nose.
>
> How do I get the tests to work? Just running nosetests gives an error
> (probably because pkgutil is being import
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 01:03, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 20:04, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Fine by me as long as people realize that if anything is questionable
> then
> > the switch will not happen. Getting this right takes precedence over any
> > deadline. And obviously we wil
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 01:55, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I would very much like the 'k' dropped from the py3 name. It was a
>>funny joke when py3 was vaporware, now it is excess baggage which
>>only puzzles non-insiders and newcomers.
>>
>>
>> Is it really that confu
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 17:47, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> > 2009/7/3 Paul Moore :
> >> Does this sound sensible? Tarek, would you be OK with me attempting to
> >> modify your prototype to support this protocol? Are there any tests
> >> for PEP 376, so that I can confirm I haven't c
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 at 12:28, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 01:03, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 20:04, Brett Cannon wrote:
Fine by me as long as people realize that if anything is questionable
then
the switch will not happen. Getting this right takes precedence
2009/7/4 Brett Cannon :
>> > Finder.uninstall(distribution_name, filter=callable, installer=name)
>> > Uninstall the given distribution. It's likely that many finders will
>> > be read-only. In that case, this function should return None.
>> > Otherwise, return a list of the "files" removed. (This
Paul Moore wrote:
> 2009/7/4 Brett Cannon :
>>> (runpy is also a lot happier with
>>> them when they expose get_filename(), a relatively recent addition to
>>> the PEP 302 API).
>> An addition I was not even aware of. Looks like importlib needs a little
>> updating.
>
> Yes, I didn't notice that s
I'm not complaining, just saying I didn't notice. I essentially did the same
with get_source/get_bytecode so as to be able to set __file__.
When I get around to it I will create a RunpyLoader in importlib.abc and add
the method in the proper machinery loaders.
On Jul 4, 2009 3:43 PM, "Nick Coghla
18 matches
Mail list logo
