(original) (raw)

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:00 AM, <python-dev-request@python.org> wrote:

Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to
� � � � python-dev@python.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
� � � � http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
� � � � python-dev-request@python.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
� � � � python-dev-owner@python.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Python-Dev digest..."


Today's Topics:

� �1\. Re: GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?) (martin@v.loewis.de)
� �2\. Bloody FAQ (Was: \[Python-ideas\] itertools.chunks(iterable,
� � � size, fill=None)) (anatoly techtonik)
� �3\. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: \[Python-ideas\]
� � � itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Mark Lawrence)
� �4\. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: \[Python-ideas\]
� � � itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Stefan Behnel)
� �5\. Re: Bloody FAQ (Was: \[Python-ideas\]
� � � itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None)) (Paul Boddie)
� �6\. EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled. (Larry Hastings)


\----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:27:02 +0200
From: martin@v.loewis.de
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: \[Python-Dev\] GitHub mirror (Was: Bitbucket mirror?)
Message-ID:
� � � � <20120705202702.Horde.Yh-RBqGZi1VP9dx2H7Nj-nA@webmail.df.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes

>> You won't get any changes in to CPython by creating pull requests. We
>> use http://bugs.python.org/ for that, sorry.
>
> Question -- is there a reason to abide by this rule for docs? �That is, if we
> could get a sympathetic core dev to look at pull requests for docs as part of
> a streamlined process, would it cause problems?

How do you communicate a "pull request"? On bitbucket, there is a
"pull request"
UI resulting in a tracker item being generated (and an email being sent), but
hg.python.org doesn't have a notion of pull requests. Of course, you could
use any communication means (email, telephone call, carrier pigeon) to request
a pull from a "sympathetic core dev".

> (What I'm really asking is whether or the bugs.python.org process is
> considered critical for potentially minor doc changes and additions.)

The sympathetic core dev is mostly free to bypass any submission process
initially; commits that bypass established procedures will likely be
questioned
only after the fact.

In the specific case, I'd be worried to verify that the submitter has provided
a contributor form. That's easy to do in the bug tracker, but difficult to do
in an offline pull request. Of course, for a really minor doc change
(e.g. typo
fixes), no contrib form is necessary.

Regards,
Martin




\------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:41:29 +0300
From: anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Behnel <stefan\_ml@behnel.de>
Cc: python-ideas@python.org, python-dev@python.org
Subject: \[Python-Dev\] Bloody FAQ (Was: \[Python-ideas\]
� � � � itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None))
Message-ID:
� � � � <CAPkN8x+A-OYWNLNKDH=6GnQn+o\_Tb3LMnimHYs9zkYmWR1GTgA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan\_ml@behnel.de> wrote:
> anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add
>>> grouper:
>>>
>>> "This has been rejected before.
>>
>> I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that
>> these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that
>> as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
>
> The \*real\* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell
> them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions
> and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know
> what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark
> "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of
> arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to the
> same result as it did before, often several times before.

Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others
time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there
is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting
gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives"
for others to admire.

No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why
don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If
people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant
and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody
Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows
why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also
help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some
major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more
interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it
easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed
before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading
old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make
users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An
"organic" way to keep traffic low.

Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for
developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as
Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to
munch-munch on the sequence data).

Wheew. :-F


\------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:55:09 +0100
From: Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>
To: python-dev@python.org
Cc: python-ideas@python.org
Subject: Re: \[Python-Dev\] Bloody FAQ (Was: \[Python-ideas\]
� � � � itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None))
Message-ID: <jt4re5$3gs$1@dough.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 05/07/2012 20:41, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan\_ml@behnel.de> wrote:
>> anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>> �From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add
>>>> grouper:
>>>>
>>>> "This has been rejected before.
>>>
>>> I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that
>>> these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that
>>> as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
>>
>> The \*real\* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell
>> them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions
>> and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know
>> what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark
>> "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of
>> arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to the
>> same result as it did before, often several times before.
>
> Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others
> time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there
> is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting
> gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives"
> for others to admire.
>
> No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why
> don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If
> people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant
> and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody
> Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows
> why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also
> help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some
> major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more
> interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it
> easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed
> before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading
> old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make
> users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An
> "organic" way to keep traffic low.
>
> Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for
> developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as
> Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to
> munch-munch on the sequence data).
>
> Wheew. :-F
>

Can I safely assume that you are volunteering to do the work required?

\--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.





\------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:58:52 +0200
From: Stefan Behnel <stefan\_ml@behnel.de>
To: python-dev@python.org
Cc: python-ideas@python.org
Subject: Re: \[Python-Dev\] Bloody FAQ (Was: \[Python-ideas\]
� � � � itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None))
Message-ID: <jt4rlt$45k$1@dough.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>> From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add
>>>> grouper:
>>>>
>>>> "This has been rejected before.
>>>
>>> I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that
>>> these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that
>>> as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
>>
>> The \*real\* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell
>> them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions
>> and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know
>> what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark
>> "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of
>> arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to the
>> same result as it did before, often several times before.
>
> Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others
> time?

Yes, that is exactly the question.

It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has pointed
out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look it
up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself,
or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on others
to do it for you?

Stefan



\------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:11:46 +0200
From: Paul Boddie <paul@boddie.org.uk>
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: \[Python-Dev\] Bloody FAQ (Was: \[Python-ideas\]
� � � � itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None))
Message-ID: <201207052311.46867.paul@boddie.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; �charset="utf-8"

Stefan Behnel wrote:
> anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 21:41:
> >
> > Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others
> > time?
>
> Yes, that is exactly the question.
>
> It takes time to write things up nicely. I mean, once someone has pointed
> out to you that this has been discussed before, you could just go, look it
> up (or search for it), and then put it into a Wiki or blog post yourself,
> or sum it up and send it to the mailing list as a reply. Why rely on others
> to do it for you?

To be fair, Anatoly has done quite a bit of maintenance on some of the Wiki
content around various aspects of the project, so it's not as if he's
demanding anything out of the ordinary or asking for others to do things that
he isn't already doing in some sense. My experience is that there usually
needs to be some willingness on the other end of the transaction, and if it
takes repetition to encourage it amongst those who don't see the current
situation as a problem for them, then so be it.

Of course, this kind of documentation activity, where one gathers together
historical decisions and the consensus from long-forgotten discussions, is
pretty thankless work. I occasionally regard it as worthwhile if only to
bring up something someone said as an inconvenient interruption in any
current discussion, but that's a pretty minimal reward for all the effort
unless one has such work as part of one's daily routine.

Paul


\------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:47:30 +0200
From: Larry Hastings <larry@hastings.org>
To: python-dev@python.org, python-committers@python.org
Subject: \[Python-Dev\] EuroPython 2012 Language Summit is Canceled.
Message-ID: <4FF68A02.8000500@hastings.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"



I only got one more RSVP and zero topics for the docket. �So let's
sprint instead.

See you at the PyCon 2013 Language Summit,


//arry/
\-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120706/f13295aa/attachment-0001.html>

\------------------------------

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev


End of Python-Dev Digest, Vol 108, Issue 7
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*