[Patches] [ python-Patches-723940 ] Backport of recent sre fixes.

[SourceForge.net]

Patches item #723940, was opened at 2003-04-19 01:15
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loewis
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=723940&group_id=5470

Category: Library (Lib)
Group: Python 2.2.x
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Rejected
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Gary Herron (herron)
Assigned to: Gustavo Niemeyer (niemeyer)
Summary: Backport of recent sre fixes.

Initial Comment:
This patch should reproduce, in the release22-maint 
branch, an exact copy of the sre code currently in the 2.3 
branch, with the single exception of the  declaration of the 
module init function.  All future patches should apply 
cleanly to both 2.3 and 2.2 branches. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2004-08-29 18:56

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

2.2 is no longer maintained, so I'm rejecting this patch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2003-04-21 08:57

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

I would be careful with copying changes. In particular, they
should not be copied if they are not fully understood. sre
is a very delicate library: difficult to understand, easy to
break, and, if broken, causing harm to many users.

Therefore, I think a strict "bug fixes only" policy should
be applied when backporting SRE fixes. Unless there is
demonstrated breakage that get fixed by applying a patch, no
backport of the patch should be made. 

By this criterion, my changes to use BIGCHARSET in UCS-4
mode should not be backported, as they don't fix a
correctness bug (they do improve performance, but at the
cost of changing the SRE bytecode interface)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Gary Herron (herron)
Date: 2003-04-21 03:55

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=395736

Gustavo, 
 
If I understand correctly: 
 
* The backport to 2.2 done by just copying the code from 2.3 is 
not the problem, but merely needs to be repeated in light of 
changes made, by you and Martin, to 2.3 in that last several 
days. 
   
* The "Greg Chapman's patch" you refer to in the checkin 
comment of revision of 2.91 of _sre.c is from before I came 
on-board, and is not the MIN_REPEAT_ONE stuff I got from him 
and gave to Guido to produce revision 2.88. 
 
* That previous patch of Greg's (revision 2.84 of _sre.c) caused 
some bugs (or at least discrepancies) which you have now 
resolved in the last day or two. 
 
* The MIN_REPEAT_ONE stuff of Greg's is not at issue. 
 
* The LASTMARK_SAVE()/LASTMARK_RESTORE() calls were 
added (quite recently) to fix some bugs, and perhaps are needed 
in other spots if we were to be clever enough (or unlucky 
enough) to provoke them. 
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2003-04-21 00:00

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

Why does the patch remove partial history?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Gustavo Niemeyer (niemeyer)
Date: 2003-04-20 23:59

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=7887

No problems. I'll check the patch and workout any issues
with Gary.

Thanks for pointing me this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2003-04-20 22:09

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6380

Assigning this to Gustavo Niemeyer, who found some problems
with this code in 2.3. Gustavo, would you mind working with
Gary on backporting this properly?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=723940&group_id=5470