New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CGIHTTPServer support for arbitrary CGI scripts #53254
Comments
CGIHTTPServer should support all CGI scripts, not only Python ones. |
I suspect this bug will sit here languishing without action, for various reasons:
|
Forgot the conclusion: I suspect noone will want to work on that. (I removed 2.7 since it’s feature frozen.) |
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:16:38PM +0000, Éric Araujo wrote:
Nope, please don't come to that conclusion soon. It is a valid
This is fine. |
Sorry, somehow I forgot the ton of work you’ve been putting into Note that I never said or thought it was an invalid request. |
I suspect this kind of discussions piss off readers of tickets, but -- start offtopic --
Right. I do not feel comfortable with Python workflow - now that I
I've already explained it somewhere in more detail. A pity it is lost. I am waiting for Mercurial 1.6 to try anchored MQ. Perhaps then I will
I can not be. pydotorg tools suxx tremendously and I do not feel
Look at Trac Hacks for a minimum acceptable example of a tool that is
stdlib doesn't propose anything better. -- end offtopic --
It would be nice if this also clarify if it is the bug of Python class |
Then try various hg features such as named branches, or bookmarks, or mq, or pbranch, etc.
Most people in most open source projects seem perfectly content without such an artillery of sophisticated tools/gadgets. While the workflow can always be improved, it is not obvious to me that your requirements are in any way reasonable, or even serious ("serious" as in "this is the only reasonable way one can work efficiently on Python" -- plenty of people, almost all of them unpaid volunteers, seem to disagree). By the way, the first thing needed to qualify as a maintainer would be to *prove* that you are up to the task. Not to have a bunch of nifty tools. In other words, you can't just come and say "hey, I'd like to be a maintainer" and expect this request to be granted automatically. |
pbranch is the next in my list, still do not have time to dig all these tools.
You account only people who found they way to be able to contribute.
I never said "this is the only reasonable way one can work efficiently
Ok. Let me try to express it in English once more: |
That's a lot of things which others do not perceive as important or even
Nobody proposed you to become a maintainer, so this is still besides the |
I am just trying to answer why I can't contribute patches myself. Hope
Can you estimate my contributions so far? |
Le jeudi 17 juin 2010 à 13:22 +0000, anatoly techtonik a écrit :
Thank you, I think you have made your point. |
I’m sorry to have launched this thread. I hadn’t thought that Senthil To address the issues Anatoly raised before I stop being off-topic:
I hope I have provided some hints and data points; I do not wish this |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: