Friendpaste

--- Revision 326563653164
+++ Revision 396635623239
@@ -1,44 +1,1 @@
-On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
-> At 02:45 PM 10/6/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
->>>
->>> To put this into a way that makes sense to me: I'm volunteering to keep
->>> distribute 0.6 and setuptools 0.6 in sync, no more, no less, and try and
->>> keep that as uncontroversial as possible, and get setuptools 0.6 releases
->>> out to match distribute 0.6 releases as soon as I can.
->
-> That may not be as easy as it sounds; Distribute deleted various things from
-> the setuptools tree (e.g. the release.sh script, used for issuing releases)
-> and of course it adds other stuff (e.g. stuff to overwrite setuptools).  So
-> you'd need to screen the diffs.
->
-> Second, I still intend to move setuptools 0.7 forward at some point, which
-> means the patches also need to go to the trunk.
-
-Dream on.
-
-> If I had the time to co-ordinate and supervise all this, I'd have the time
-> to just do it myself.
-
-I think at this point the community should not be forced wait for you
-to get a new supply of round tuits. The wait has been too long
-already. You can stay on in an advisory role, but I don't think it's
-reasonable to block development or decisions until you have time.
-
-> If you want to help with that, the most helpful thing would be for you to
-> consolidate all the changes into a pair of patches: one for the 0.6 branch
-> and one for the 0.7 trunk.
->
-> These patches would also need to exclude the SVN 1.6 changes (as I already
-> have a change for that in my working copy, not yet checked in).  They would
-> also need to include appropriate changelog and documentation updates.
->
-> If you can get those to me by Friday, I'll have them reviewed, applied, and
-> released by Monday.  I was already planning to spend a little time on bug
-> closing and patch application this coming weekend, so if you can do this for
-> me first, it will maximize the number I can get done.
-
-That's great, but I don't think it solves the structural problem,
-which is that you don't have enough time to devote to the project.
-
---
---Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
+Y8ymZ4  <a href="http://opgfgzcaxgwr.com/">opgfgzcaxgwr</a>, [url=http://isuuuymabdnh.com/]isuuuymabdnh[/url], [link=http://nhzkkufsgoaw.com/]nhzkkufsgoaw[/link], http://krvzoqygnjyc.com/
a	b
0		-	On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
0		-	> At 02:45 PM 10/6/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
0		-	>>>
0		-	>>> To put this into a way that makes sense to me: I'm volunteering to keep
0		-	>>> distribute 0.6 and setuptools 0.6 in sync, no more, no less, and try and
0		-	>>> keep that as uncontroversial as possible, and get setuptools 0.6 releases
0		-	>>> out to match distribute 0.6 releases as soon as I can.
0		-	>
0		-	> That may not be as easy as it sounds; Distribute deleted various things from
0		-	> the setuptools tree (e.g. the release.sh script, used for issuing releases)
0		-	> and of course it adds other stuff (e.g. stuff to overwrite setuptools). So
0		-	> you'd need to screen the diffs.
0		-	>
0		-	> Second, I still intend to move setuptools 0.7 forward at some point, which
0		-	> means the patches also need to go to the trunk.
0		-
0		-	Dream on.
0		-
0		-	> If I had the time to co-ordinate and supervise all this, I'd have the time
0		-	> to just do it myself.
0		-
0		-	I think at this point the community should not be forced wait for you
0		-	to get a new supply of round tuits. The wait has been too long
0		-	already. You can stay on in an advisory role, but I don't think it's
0		-	reasonable to block development or decisions until you have time.
0		-
0		-	> If you want to help with that, the most helpful thing would be for you to
0		-	> consolidate all the changes into a pair of patches: one for the 0.6 branch
0		-	> and one for the 0.7 trunk.
0		-	>
0		-	> These patches would also need to exclude the SVN 1.6 changes (as I already
0		-	> have a change for that in my working copy, not yet checked in). They would
0		-	> also need to include appropriate changelog and documentation updates.
0		-	>
0		-	> If you can get those to me by Friday, I'll have them reviewed, applied, and
0		-	> released by Monday. I was already planning to spend a little time on bug
0		-	> closing and patch application this coming weekend, so if you can do this for
0		-	> me first, it will maximize the number I can get done.
0		-
0		-	That's great, but I don't think it solves the structural problem,
0		-	which is that you don't have enough time to devote to the project.
0		-
0		-	--
0		-	--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
	0	+	Y8ymZ4 <a href="http://opgfgzcaxgwr.com/">opgfgzcaxgwr</a>, [url=http://isuuuymabdnh.com/]isuuuymabdnh[/url], [link=http://nhzkkufsgoaw.com/]nhzkkufsgoaw[/link], http://krvzoqygnjyc.com/
...