On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:12:59 -0500, Guido van Rossum <guido@digicool.com> wrote:
> The few where I had doubts have already been covered
> by others. As the saying goes, "check it in" :-)
I'm afraid it will still take time to generate the patches, apply
them, test them, etc....
I was hoping to create a list of patches tonight, but I'm a bit too
dead. I'll post to p-l tommorow with the new list of patches.
PS.
Tools/script/logmerge.py loses version numbers. That pretty much
sucks for doing the work I did, even though the raw log was worse --
I ended up cross referencing and finding version numbers by hand.
If anyone doesn't have anything better to do, here's a nice gift
for 2.1 ;-)
PPS.
Most of the work I can do myself just fine. There are a couple of places
where I could *really* need some help. One of those is testing fixes
for bugs which manifest on exotic OSes (and as far as I'm concerned,
Windows is as exotic as they come <95 wink>.) Please let me know if
you're interested in testing patches for them.
--
"I'll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I'm |LUKE: Is Perl better than Python?
looking for someplace else to grab power."|YODA: No...no... no. Quicker,
-- Wichert Akkerman (on debian-private)| easier, more seductive.
For public key, finger moshez@debian.org |http://www.{python,debian,gnu}.org
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4