[Idle-dev] Re: merge DS_RPC_BRANCH back to main?

[Kurt B. Kaiser]

"Stephen M. Gava" wrote:
> 
> > > So, what do you think, has the SPE/RPC stuff settled down enough now
> > > that other development can continue on the trunk as well now? Guido, do
> > > you have an opinion on this as well?
> >
> > Not really, I haven't been following this.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > I thought that Kurt was
> > already working on the trunk???
> 
> Yeah, he is, but a while back he and you decided that everyone else
> should continue to work on DS_RPC_BRANCH while the first cuts of the
> spe/rpc stuff were made on the trunk, because those changes were feared
> likely to cause major breakage. I'm hoping things are stable enough on
> the trunk now that we can merge DS_RPC_BRANCH back and all continue to
> work there now.

There is one major task remaining.  Just clearing/massaging the global
environment and sys is not an adequate substitute for simply restarting the
Python execution server on Run/F5.  There are too many possible side effects,
especially if the user wants to edit the modules used by the execution server.  
I'm currently working on the code to do the restart.  This may involve some
significant changes and it may be best to hold off for a bit and let me
complete that.  As far as stability goes, MAIN actually seems pretty solid,
though it might become unstable for awhile after I introduce the restart code. 
I'm hoping not, we'll see.

It would be good to get more eyes on it.

I was thinking that since it's been a year since there was a release of the
Visual Python version of Idlefork, that they would appreciate another release
of the DS_RPC_BRANCH which contains all the work you have done to date and the
merges of Python Idle bugfixes.  So the cleanup work you are doing is quite
appropriate for a "final" release.  The new merge from Python Idle you
mentioned (PEP263??), would that be useful to the VP branch?

Once we merge to MAIN, I suppose there would only be critical bug fixes on the
DS_RPC_BRANCH.  Then we need to convince Scherer/Sherwood et. al. (via config
options?) that the MAIN line of development is a good way to continue for their
purposes.

Regards, KBK