Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #94115 > unrolled thread

Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 14:42 +0100
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-19 18:10 +0200
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 17:38 +0100
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-19 19:14 +0200
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 18:54 +0100
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:28 -0700
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 11:44 -0700
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 12:13 -0700
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 13:21 -0700
                    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 12:36 +1000
                      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-19 21:07 -0700
                      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-22 00:40 +0100
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:46 +0200
                    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 22:00 -0700
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:36 +0200
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 13:01 -0600
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 12:28 -0700
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 13:36 -0700
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 14:27 -0700
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 17:45 -0700
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 18:25 -0700
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-19 22:05 +0200
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 21:28 +0100
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-20 00:10 +0200
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 23:51 +0100
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-20 01:23 +0200
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 01:27 +0100
                    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 17:49 -0700
                      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 18:26 -0700
                        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 18:35 -0700
                          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 13:12 +1000
                            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 21:30 -0600
                              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 15:59 +1000
                                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:58 -0700
                                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 18:33 +1000
                      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:58 -0700
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 23:33 -0600
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 00:39 -0600
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 12:49 +1000
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 12:32 +1000
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:06 +0200
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:10 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#94184

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:45:43 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have no negative perception of 2.7, it simply no longer
> interests me, to repeat in the same way that it no longer
> interests some core devs.

Your apathy towards Py2 will not shield you from the
collateral damage caused by it's demise.

What matters is what the *WORLD* thinks about Python. And if
the global "perception" is that: "Python is buggy", or that:
"the python community is fractured" -> then all hope in
widespread future adoption is gone! Then, both Py2 and Py3
die. Then, you will be forced to use another language? 

  GOT IT?

This is *NOT* about you, or me, this is about the
*PERCEPTION* of Python within the *ENTIRE* programming
community.

> are you still too busy working on your fork, RickedPython?  

I've never seen you before. Are you a regular hiding behind
a fake name?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94159

On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>> On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>>>> to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
>>>>
>>>> Of course, allowed.  But should they be made, and if so, by who?
>>>
>>> The people who want the fixes.
>>
>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>> themselves?
>
> Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers for them
> because they're not capable of doing it for themselves.

That is why I think it is good analogy. I think that most of the users
of 2.7 who would be delighted with fixes would have no idea how to get
those fixes into 2.7.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94161

On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> wrote:
>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>>> On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>>>>> to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, allowed.  But should they be made, and if so, by who?
>>>>
>>>> The people who want the fixes.
>>>
>>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>>> themselves?
>>
>> Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers for them
>> because they're not capable of doing it for themselves.
>
> That is why I think it is good analogy. I think that most of the users
> of 2.7 who would be delighted with fixes would have no idea how to get
> those fixes into 2.7.
>

They could try reading the development guide to start with, or is that 
also too much to ask?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94170

On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 22:28 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>>>>>> to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, allowed. But should they be made, and if so, by who?
>>>>>
>>>>> The people who want the fixes.
>>>>
>>>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>>>> themselves?
>>>
>>> Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers for them
>>> because they're not capable of doing it for themselves.
>>
>> That is why I think it is good analogy. I think that most of the
>> users of 2.7 who would be delighted with fixes would have no idea
>> how to get those fixes into 2.7.
>>
>
> They could try reading the development guide to start with, or is
> that also too much to ask?

My impression is that you and some other people are in an ivory tower
and find it very cosy.

It reminds me about the man on dry land who responded to the person
who fell in water and shouted
    “Help, I cannot swim!”
with
    “Why are you screaming?
     I cannot swim also.
     Do you hear me yelling about it?"

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94172

On 19/07/2015 23:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 22:28 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>>>>>>> to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, allowed. But should they be made, and if so, by who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The people who want the fixes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>>>>> themselves?
>>>>
>>>> Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers for them
>>>> because they're not capable of doing it for themselves.
>>>
>>> That is why I think it is good analogy. I think that most of the
>>> users of 2.7 who would be delighted with fixes would have no idea
>>> how to get those fixes into 2.7.
>>>
>>
>> They could try reading the development guide to start with, or is
>> that also too much to ask?
>
> My impression is that you and some other people are in an ivory tower
> and find it very cosy.
>
> It reminds me about the man on dry land who responded to the person
> who fell in water and shouted
>      “Help, I cannot swim!”
> with
>      “Why are you screaming?
>       I cannot swim also.
>       Do you hear me yelling about it?"
>

You are now suggesting that people shouldn't even bother reading the 
develoment guide, just great.  Do they have to do anything themselves to 
get patches through?  Presumably the core devs give up their paid work, 
holidays, families, other hobbies and the like, just so some bunch of 
lazy, bone idle gits can get what they want, for nothing, when it suits 
them?  It appears that babies aren't the only people who need their 
nappies changing around here.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94176

On Monday 20 Jul 2015 00:51 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> On 19/07/2015 23:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 22:28 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>>>>>>>> to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, allowed. But should they be made, and if so, by
>>>>>>>> who?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The people who want the fixes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>>>>>> themselves?
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers for
>>>>> them because they're not capable of doing it for themselves.
>>>>
>>>> That is why I think it is good analogy. I think that most of the
>>>> users of 2.7 who would be delighted with fixes would have no idea
>>>> how to get those fixes into 2.7.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They could try reading the development guide to start with, or is
>>> that also too much to ask?
>>
>> My impression is that you and some other people are in an ivory
>> tower and find it very cosy.
>>
>> It reminds me about the man on dry land who responded to the person
>> who fell in water and shouted
>> “Help, I cannot swim!”
>> with
>> “Why are you screaming?
>> I cannot swim also.
>> Do you hear me yelling about it?"
>>
>
> You are now suggesting that people shouldn't even bother reading the
> develoment guide, just great. Do they have to do anything themselves
> to get patches through? Presumably the core devs give up their paid
> work, holidays, families, other hobbies and the like, just so some
> bunch of lazy, bone idle gits can get what they want, for nothing,
> when it suits them? It appears that babies aren't the only people
> who need their nappies changing around here.

No use replying anymore. You make a caricature of what I am saying and
put words in my mouth I never said. Just stay in your cosy ivory
tower. But please do not pretend that you are open for discussion,
because you are not.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94180

On 20/07/2015 00:23, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> On Monday 20 Jul 2015 00:51 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> On 19/07/2015 23:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 22:28 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, allowed. But should they be made, and if so, by
>>>>>>>>> who?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The people who want the fixes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>>>>>>> themselves?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers for
>>>>>> them because they're not capable of doing it for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is why I think it is good analogy. I think that most of the
>>>>> users of 2.7 who would be delighted with fixes would have no idea
>>>>> how to get those fixes into 2.7.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They could try reading the development guide to start with, or is
>>>> that also too much to ask?
>>>
>>> My impression is that you and some other people are in an ivory
>>> tower and find it very cosy.
>>>
>>> It reminds me about the man on dry land who responded to the person
>>> who fell in water and shouted
>>> “Help, I cannot swim!”
>>> with
>>> “Why are you screaming?
>>> I cannot swim also.
>>> Do you hear me yelling about it?"
>>>
>>
>> You are now suggesting that people shouldn't even bother reading the
>> develoment guide, just great. Do they have to do anything themselves
>> to get patches through? Presumably the core devs give up their paid
>> work, holidays, families, other hobbies and the like, just so some
>> bunch of lazy, bone idle gits can get what they want, for nothing,
>> when it suits them? It appears that babies aren't the only people
>> who need their nappies changing around here.
>
> No use replying anymore. You make a caricature of what I am saying and
> put words in my mouth I never said. Just stay in your cosy ivory
> tower. But please do not pretend that you are open for discussion,
> because you are not.
>

Thank goodness for that as you make no sense at all.

As for this ivory tower nonsense, you clearly haven't bothered reading 
anything I've said about the proposed improvements to the core workflow. 
  But then of course you wouldn't bother with that, you again expect 
somebody else to do all the work for you, for free, and probably still 
complain that the benefits that you're getting aren't enough.  Quite 
frankly your attitude throughout this thread makes me puke.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94182

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:28:28 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> Thank goodness for that as you make no sense at all. As
> for this ivory tower nonsense, [...]

Cecil, don't pay too much attention to Mark, he's a glory
hound. He's like the Python community version of Cerberus --
you know, the three headed dog guarding the entrance to the
Greek underworld. 

Every time i defeat him, and drag him out through an opening in
the "caverns of code", and take him to a secret grove owned
by D'Aprano, he always escapes and returns to guard the
entrance again -- he's very loyal!

He won't allow you to enter because you're still alive, and
as such, you still have the capacity to "feel" emotions like
compassion. These emotions are forbidden in the underworld!!!

But don't worry, his bark is worse than his bite, and he is
just the first of many daemons you must defeat on your quest
to challenge the benevolent Hades.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94185

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 1:49:58 AM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:28:28 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> 
> > Thank goodness for that as you make no sense at all. As
> > for this ivory tower nonsense, [...]
> 
> Cecil, don't pay too much attention to Mark, he's a glory
> hound. He's like the Python community version of Cerberus --
> you know, the three headed dog guarding the entrance to the
> Greek underworld. 
> 
> Every time i defeat him, and drag him out through an opening in
> the "caverns of code", and take him to a secret grove owned
> by D'Aprano, he always escapes and returns to guard the
> entrance again -- he's very loyal!
> 
> He won't allow you to enter because you're still alive, and
> as such, you still have the capacity to "feel" emotions like
> compassion. These emotions are forbidden in the underworld!!!
> 
> But don't worry, his bark is worse than his bite, and he is
> just the first of many daemons you must defeat on your quest
> to challenge the benevolent Hades.

Gosh you don't half spout some rubbish.  Your total number of victories over me is zero, although I personally come here to give or get knowledge, not look for such things.

As for the cobblers about Cerburus and "challenging the benevolent Hades" would you be kind enough to:-

a) list just how many Python bugs you have worked on

b) state how much work you intend doing on the planned core workflow improvements

For the latter you can find the relevant PEPs easily enough for yourself, or just like Cecil do you expect someone to do that for you as well?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94186

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:26:52 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 1:49:58 AM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:28:28 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> > Every time i defeat [MARK LAWRENCE], and drag him out
> > through an opening in the "caverns of code", and take
> > him to a secret grove owned by D'Aprano, he always
> > escapes and returns to guard the entrance again -- he's
> > very loyal!
> 
> Your total number of victories over me is zero, although I
> personally come here to give or get knowledge, not look
> for such things.

I figured that was you *MARK LAWRENCE*. I shall add sock-puppeting 
to your many egregious offenses! And poorly executed sock-puppeting 
as well! You're a zero.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94198

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:35 am, Rick Johnson wrote:

> I figured that was you *MARK LAWRENCE*. I shall add sock-puppeting
> to your many egregious offenses! And poorly executed sock-puppeting
> as well! You're a zero.

Rick, what the hell are you talking about? Mark is using the same email
address as he has always used (unlike a certain person who shall remain
unnamed, but used to go by the names RR and Ranting Rick and possibly
others).

Neglecting to include a sig containing your name at the bottom of your email
is not "sock-puppeting". If it were, you would be guilty of it as well: you
don't usually sign your posts.

A bit of rough-and-tumble on discussion forums like this is one thing, but I
think falsely accusing someone of sock-puppeting is going too far. If you
aren't man enough to give Mark an apology, at least be man enough to
acknowledge that you made a mistake.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94200

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:35 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
>
>> I figured that was you *MARK LAWRENCE*. I shall add sock-puppeting
>> to your many egregious offenses! And poorly executed sock-puppeting
>> as well! You're a zero.
>
> Rick, what the hell are you talking about? Mark is using the same email
> address as he has always used (unlike a certain person who shall remain
> unnamed, but used to go by the names RR and Ranting Rick and possibly
> others).

Not quite; one is @yahoo.co.uk, and the other is @gmail.com. If the
great Ranting Rick can't tell that these belong to the same person
just based on the local part, then what chance do we mere mortals
have?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94209

On Monday 20 July 2015 13:30, Ian Kelly wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:35 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I figured that was you *MARK LAWRENCE*. I shall add sock-puppeting
>>> to your many egregious offenses! And poorly executed sock-puppeting
>>> as well! You're a zero.
>>
>> Rick, what the hell are you talking about? Mark is using the same email
>> address as he has always used (unlike a certain person who shall remain
>> unnamed, but used to go by the names RR and Ranting Rick and possibly
>> others).
> 
> Not quite; one is @yahoo.co.uk, and the other is @gmail.com.

Ah, so they are. You're right, I was wrong, they're not the same email 
address. But still, accusations of sock-puppetry from a change in email 
provider is unreasonable, and I believe that Rick should acknowledge that he 
over-reacted.


> If the
> great Ranting Rick can't tell that these belong to the same person
> just based on the local part, then what chance do we mere mortals
> have?



-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94265

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:59:53 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Not quite; one is @yahoo.co.uk, and the other is @gmail.com.
> 
> Ah, so they are. You're right, I was wrong, they're not
> the same email address. But still, accusations of sock-
> puppetry from a change in email provider is unreasonable,
> and I believe that Rick should acknowledge that he over-
> reacted.

I'm not sure if i misinterpreted the puppetry, or not. I
thought Mark was hiding behind the "bream" account, but i'm
not so sure now. Weird things were happening yesterday with my
quotes (i even mentioned the strangeness in one of my
replies, check the archives).

But even if i am wrong, the worse thing i did was mis-
interpret his and another post. But since he still owes me
an apology for insulting my integrity, i'd say we're even.
Funny thing is, no one called for Mark to apologize... GO
FIGURE! I guess pets get preferential treatment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94276

On Tuesday 21 July 2015 13:58, Rick Johnson wrote:

> But even if i am wrong, the worse thing i did was mis-
> interpret his and another post. But since he still owes me
> an apology for insulting my integrity, 

Someone insulted your integrity? Poor integrity, I hope it wasn't too upset.

> i'd say we're even.
> Funny thing is, no one called for Mark to apologize... GO
> FIGURE! I guess pets get preferential treatment.

Perhaps nobody else read Mark's post. Perhaps they didn't think he insulted 
your integrity. Perhaps they thought you don't have any integrity to be 
insulted. Perhaps they thought you deserved it. Perhaps they wrote a post 
critical of Mark but suffered a fatal heart attack just before they could 
hit send. Anything is possible.

I guess we'll just never know.



-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94194

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 6:19:58 AM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote:
> But don't worry, his bark is worse than his bite, and he is
> just the first of many daemons you must defeat on your quest
> to challenge the benevolent Hades.

Do you give lessons in rhetoric Rick?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94208

On 07/19/2015 06:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 20/07/2015 00:23, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> No use replying anymore. You make a caricature of what I am saying and
>> put words in my mouth I never said. Just stay in your cosy ivory
>> tower. But please do not pretend that you are open for discussion,
>> because you are not.
>>
> 
> Thank goodness for that as you make no sense at all.
> 
> As for this ivory tower nonsense, you clearly haven't bothered reading 
> anything I've said about the proposed improvements to the core workflow. 
>   But then of course you wouldn't bother with that, you again expect 
> somebody else to do all the work for you, for free, and probably still 
> complain that the benefits that you're getting aren't enough.  Quite 
> frankly your attitude throughout this thread makes me puke.

You'll have to explain yourself a bit, attacking Cecil like this.  I've
been following this thread and I don't see anything in Cecil's attitude
that is sickening.  You both have good points, and it's unfortunate
you're talking past one another, though it appears more like you are
talking past Cecil more than he is talking past you.  For the most part,
it's been good to hear from Cecil (there have been a few snarky posts)
as he has learned python and really run with it.  I don't understand
where your apparent frustration with Cecil is coming from.  Seems like
this last post of yours had more than a little attitude of the very type
you're decrying.

>From what I can tell, Cecil is simply challenging the conventional
notion that many have that all software developers using Python are able
and willing to participate in backporting and bug fixes to both CPython
and the Python 2.7 standard library.  You replied that the process for
contributing to Python is going to be streamlined, which is good.
However, like Cecil, I agree that many devs are still not going to be
able to contribute for many reasons, be they time, skills, economics, or
something else.  That doesn't make them lazy, entitled folk.  Certainly
if potential contributors jumped on this list and viewed this thread, I
think they might be discouraged by your post attacking Cecil.

Given the lack of economic incentive, I'm sure most devs understand that
Python 2.7 won't receive the same love as Python 3.4.  And most probably
accept that.  We recognize that core devs put in a lot of time and
energy for a variety of reasons, some of which are just for the love of
the project, and we benefit at little to no cost  We thank them for this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94215

On 07/19/2015 11:33 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>  For the most part,
> it's been good to hear from Cecil (there have been a few snarky posts)
> as he has learned python and really run with it.  I don't understand
> where your apparent frustration with Cecil is coming from.

Come to think of it, I can't think of but one post, maybe, where he was
short with someone, but not snarky.  I take that back.  Which is better
than me, and probably others!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94193

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:51 am, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> You are now suggesting that people shouldn't even bother reading the
> develoment guide, just great.  Do they have to do anything themselves to
> get patches through?  Presumably the core devs give up their paid work,
> holidays, families, other hobbies and the like, just so some bunch of
> lazy, bone idle gits can get what they want, for nothing, when it suits
> them?

Just a reminder that at least some of the core devs, including Guido, are
paid to work on Python.

And another reminder that open source software doesn't have any restrictions
about only distributing software to those who are willing and able to write
patches for it. Anyone can use Python, including children and
non-programmers. Being able to hack on the interpreter C code and produce
quality patches is not a pre-requisite.

I know that I've reported bugs in Python that I was unqualified or incapable
of fixing, at least without going through months or years of learning. At
least one of those bugs has been fixed by others who have the skills.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94191

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 05:01 am, Ian Kelly wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl>
> wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>> On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>>>> to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
>>>>
>>>> Of course, allowed.  But should they be made, and if so, by who?
>>>
>>> The people who want the fixes.
>>
>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>> themselves?
> 
> Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers for them
> because they're not capable of doing it for themselves.

Good analogy. Most Python programmers are no more able to write patches for
Python than babies are able to change their own nappy.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web