From solipsis at pitrou.net Mon Sep 1 12:19:36 2008 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:19:36 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Patches need review Message-ID: <1220264376.5602.6.camel@fsol> Hello all, According to the release schedule (PEP 361), the first release candidates are scheduled for the 3rd of September. Right now there are roughly 50 release blockers waiting. Many of them do have a patch. But very few people seem to review patches these days, and that's what is getting us stuck: without review, those patches will not go in. So it would be nice if people could invest a bit of their time in reviewing some of these patches and give or not approval for inclusion. Regards Antoine. From musiccomposition at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 16:09:23 2008 From: musiccomposition at gmail.com (Benjamin Peterson) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:09:23 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] Patches need review In-Reply-To: <1220264376.5602.6.camel@fsol> References: <1220264376.5602.6.camel@fsol> Message-ID: <1afaf6160809010709o6e8b65ar534e0c00c7b8d8f2@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Hello all, > > According to the release schedule (PEP 361), the first release > candidates are scheduled for the 3rd of September. > Right now there are roughly 50 release blockers waiting. Many of them do > have a patch. But very few people seem to review patches these days, and > that's what is getting us stuck: without review, those patches will not > go in. > > So it would be nice if people could invest a bit of their time in > reviewing some of these patches and give or not approval for inclusion. I will try to step up my reviewing. Unfortunately, I can't review my own things. In particular, I'd like to have some of my 2to3 patches reviewed. The one I'd most like to get in the moment is #3637. (Note that the patch simply changes the API around and doesn't involve the heavy lifting of 2to3; even if you aren't very familiar with 2to3, you could review it.) > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's no place like 127.0.0.1." From barry at python.org Thu Sep 4 00:05:15 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:05:15 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Working on the releases - No commits please Message-ID: <644E317A-1239-45CD-A738-082A6CDE7B48@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm going to start working on the releases now. Please no commits unless you've checked with me on #python-dev @ freenode, until further notice. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSL8KG3EjvBPtnXfVAQKfxAQApT5URP2UAthkmjrKC82mreLlKKp2JUHN cqZIf84xvka+TyJs+3XL/5TFVgFpXUrPX8TwSRJbzZbXXEWsMEqydR51qAXbHrWQ 0/qjpmgULf3WLnpCU+ApO/zuIotYipQN32I6Lom/OTu6YolbEO+kjWX9p17zuZBd YlsHP2B+m2Q= =1byG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From barry at python.org Thu Sep 4 05:46:00 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:46:00 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] branches open Message-ID: <9F9EBCDB-0AD1-4DC8-A74A-A2AA48AA6B7E@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 See my message to python-dev. I'm not releasing rc1 today so the branches are open for commits. Remember of course that all must be reviewed. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCUAwUBSL9Z+HEjvBPtnXfVAQKnAQP46FSRBNKODPBSIdp5IQyK3FOmUQYt7J57 xckF2+SI4uA3cKhCXcYtFDHDzIFkxwGfV5dogKBmYDQHHwxFd83aUyJU2vlyh7Aa l8xTw/of21J+OdFOTJy9BkGY4qahgj/RPgumLSm4OtTrWtnYm13jEvCeP+AZgZ0C oS+O6sMBaw== =FyVD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From janssen at parc.com Thu Sep 4 18:52:50 2008 From: janssen at parc.com (Bill Janssen) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:52:50 PDT Subject: [python-committers] Trunk and 3.0 branch are now open In-Reply-To: References: <20080820231018.1cde4c23@resist.wooz.org>

Message-ID: <08Sep4.095252pdt."58698"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com> > but before deciding > to fix a bug, please consult at least one other committer, and when it > doubt, mail the list. Is there a handy list of committers available? Bill From brett at python.org Thu Sep 4 20:17:45 2008 From: brett at python.org (Brett Cannon) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:17:45 -0700 Subject: [python-committers] Trunk and 3.0 branch are now open In-Reply-To: <5536224463378144456@unknownmsgid> References: <20080820231018.1cde4c23@resist.wooz.org>

<5536224463378144456@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Bill Janssen wrote: >> but before deciding >> to fix a bug, please consult at least one other committer, and when it >> doubt, mail the list. > > Is there a handy list of committers available? > As always, the python-dev FAQ has an answer: http://www.python.org/dev/faq/#who-has-commit-privileges-on-the-subversion-repository . -Brett From jcea at jcea.es Mon Sep 8 14:17:01 2008 From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:17:01 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] broken arm Message-ID: <48C517BD.80703@jcea.es> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, guys. I just have broken my left arm last saturday (sliding swimming pools are dangerous :)). I will be barely online for the next 6 weeks. I will try to keep email backlog under control, but single-hand typing is a nightmare. I will be "slow" but available, anyway. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBSMUXsplgi5GaxT1NAQKu2wQAj67jDJzk2ah0aF+DF119mYib5XlP6kAU bIFCNC1ipYI/BmiS8djSQzZCWSgJQasZIJ28A5D2E3ey0jrrmXYqmw8OicXZ+ckE jHgJYPWf4XNAkW6h4TRalnCPEMMWEz9HarHYbOehxjsRESxq4T0ayWYvL9hk5J+3 tJo8qwxCzrY= =PmIb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From skip at pobox.com Mon Sep 8 19:10:03 2008 From: skip at pobox.com (skip at pobox.com) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:10:03 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] broken arm In-Reply-To: <48C517BD.80703@jcea.es> References: <48C517BD.80703@jcea.es> Message-ID: <18629.23659.765549.910577@montanaro-dyndns-org.local> Jesus> I just have broken my left arm last saturday (sliding swimming Jesus> pools are dangerous :)). I will be barely online for the next 6 Jesus> weeks. I will try to keep email backlog under control, but Jesus> single-hand typing is a nightmare. Jesus> I will be "slow" but available, anyway. Ouch... Dragon NaturallySpeaking, perhaps? http://www.nuance.com/naturallyspeaking/ Hope you feel better soon. Skip From christian at cheimes.de Mon Sep 8 20:02:58 2008 From: christian at cheimes.de (Christian Heimes) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:02:58 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] broken arm In-Reply-To: <48C517BD.80703@jcea.es> References: <48C517BD.80703@jcea.es> Message-ID: <48C568D2.30903@cheimes.de> Jesus Cea wrote: > I just have broken my left arm last saturday (sliding swimming pools are > dangerous :)). I will be barely online for the next 6 weeks. I will try > to keep email backlog under control, but single-hand typing is a nightmare. Take the opportunity and read some good books! :] And get well soon. Christian PS: Who was talking about a single point of failure a few days ago? ... From python-committers-list at trentnelson.com Mon Sep 8 20:40:45 2008 From: python-committers-list at trentnelson.com (Trent Nelson) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:40:45 +0000 Subject: [python-committers] broken arm In-Reply-To: <48C517BD.80703@jcea.es> References: <48C517BD.80703@jcea.es> Message-ID: <20080908184045.GC68013@wind.teleri.net> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 02:17:01PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, guys. > > I just have broken my left arm last saturday (sliding swimming pools are > dangerous :)). I will be barely online for the next 6 weeks. I will try > to keep email backlog under control, but single-hand typing is a nightmare. Having endured the arduous task of single-hand typing this evening (e-mailing whilst inhaling a chicken burger), I can certainly symp- athise! I'll have some time away from work over PyCon UK where I can put some cycles into bsddb (especially on py3k and on Windows). Hope the slide was worth it }:> Trent. From python-committers-list at trentnelson.com Mon Sep 8 20:45:05 2008 From: python-committers-list at trentnelson.com (Trent Nelson) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:45:05 +0000 Subject: [python-committers] Who's going to be at PyCon UK this weekend? Message-ID: <20080908184505.GD68013@wind.teleri.net> Any Python committers making the trip to Birmingham this coming weekend for PyCon UK? Would be good to meet up. I can't make it to the sprints but I'll be around Friday->Sunday. Mobile: +44 7753 424 577, phone e-mail: tnelson at onresolve.com. Look forward to meeting some new faces! Trent. From jcea at jcea.es Thu Sep 11 00:25:00 2008 From: jcea at jcea.es (Jesus Cea) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:25:00 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] broken arm In-Reply-To: <48C568D2.30903@cheimes.de> References: <48C517BD.80703@jcea.es> <48C568D2.30903@cheimes.de> Message-ID: <48C8493C.3050104@jcea.es> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Christian Heimes wrote: > Take the opportunity and read some good books! :] And get well soon. Just reading the last book from Ken Follet :-P. 1200 pages... > PS: Who was talking about a single point of failure a few days ago? ... I'm still here :-). PS: If I was working in the bsddb code for Python 3.0 I would have spend Saturday working on this, instead of having fun in a birthday party with an aching end :-). Shit happens :) - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBSMhJK5lgi5GaxT1NAQJbiAP+NSFZSDjvx84JdqZvMf9un48ai+vHPeXO MIvms07H7iSpXZA4MwjTe4iJ0FzG30EZPKZ16jqgnT2AJW2E+NndZo/KLC4zjN75 iTZvpsxzfY2PFvqOqueNqrowzRmESWZrxr8B95eHgSSawMlKhJmtWoKJHkZ9kgdm SPiy5QjZ2vU= =s5KE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From barry at python.org Sat Sep 13 01:13:21 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:13:21 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] Trunk freeze Message-ID: <78D0FA57-8A65-432B-8DF0-C2547E939E9B@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Since there were no objections, and we have no release blockers, I'm going to go ahead and spin the 2.6rc1 release. Please refrain from committing anything to the trunk until further notice, or until you check with me on freenode #python-dev. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSMr3knEjvBPtnXfVAQLhbQP/VYKxEc+Kp/4plauCbjNsTHqI/gzoigsS js0lDogf9wWai/ABgwn5N4Gn3s4kkWJpcdIKoA5XUqkWQWfq3lYJphO02vruqx77 M6juoStVLpcnEd7fx6cCmJkYqPoafjgE4sHeFg2v5q+3q0nPug3iuKB+KqHACyKr ay4sdXZjHGY= =H0w5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From barry at python.org Sat Sep 13 03:22:27 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:22:27 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] trunk is open Message-ID: <66E6C7AA-26CA-4BA7-BC37-BEF302D92DEA@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 2.6rc1 is done, so the trunk is now open for commits. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSMsV1HEjvBPtnXfVAQK0CgP+MujzHfxVBE8prbhX/lq3vah3CYTSWmBu qXQDu78Chde2aQJZZiEEs0DEuJX9istz0YaDMnOLcDlUtG00yYdUx7Q6nZeCE/zw 1U2PjHPZ9vDHF5WZv3XTZ3CzLLpx5tEHKlTY10RNr6JhQoHiF9GSCAArigg1t9EA S6i06M87IAU= =WTfE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From solipsis at pitrou.net Sun Sep 14 02:37:51 2008 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:37:51 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] deferred blockers Message-ID: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> Hi all, Now 2.6rc1 is released, shouldn't the issues which have "deferred blocker" status be put back in the "release blocker" category? cheers Antoine. From musiccomposition at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 03:12:23 2008 From: musiccomposition at gmail.com (Benjamin Peterson) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:12:23 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] deferred blockers In-Reply-To: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> References: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> Message-ID: <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Hi all, > > Now 2.6rc1 is released, shouldn't the issues which have "deferred > blocker" status be put back in the "release blocker" category? I believe most of those issues are actually 3.0 ones that were demoted to deferred, so we can release 3.0rc1 on Wednesday. I think the ones applicable to 2.6 can be bumped up, though. > > cheers > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's no place like 127.0.0.1." From barry at python.org Sun Sep 14 05:40:43 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:40:43 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] deferred blockers In-Reply-To: <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> References: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <211C9F2A-55F7-4A9F-BC90-1B140CC9E026@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 13, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Now 2.6rc1 is released, shouldn't the issues which have "deferred >> blocker" status be put back in the "release blocker" category? > > I believe most of those issues are actually 3.0 ones that were demoted > to deferred, so we can release 3.0rc1 on Wednesday. I think the ones > applicable to 2.6 can be bumped up, though. Yes, please bump the 2.6 deferreds to release blockers. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSMyHu3EjvBPtnXfVAQK1yQP+OFOvMCEJOo7y251FCJalDy0pcK/rxZPR b5nuMZ89L8gJ+crM0VAmcWc0KjX/P233jlC+CYtN7VYGp3J1VatRYNJuzbNuAl4V XMF42ykMKYAHHFCM1/0axvTGqkIuunQlaSdxMP4tXoPpMnvQLdagqovAQ2PQT98I 3zk1ZFoxjXo= =084Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au Sun Sep 14 15:15:50 2008 From: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au (Andrew MacIntyre) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:15:50 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] patches for review: OS/2 EMX port updates for 2.6 Message-ID: <48CD0E86.5000608@bullseye.andymac.org> I'd appreciate a committer review of the 2 patches attached to issue 3868 (http://bugs.python.org/issue3868), so that I can get them in for 2.6 final. The build related patches only affect files in PC/os2emx (not used by any other part of Python, so could be checked in without any impact), but there are also some source related patches... In passing I'll note I've added issues 3863 (http://bugs.python.org/issue3863) and 3864 (http://bugs.python.org/issue3864), which both affect FreeBSD. Unfortunately I can't make much time to dig into these further at the moment :-(. Thanks, Andrew. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..." E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au (pref) | Snail: PO Box 370 andymac at pcug.org.au (alt) | Belconnen ACT 2616 Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia From musiccomposition at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 18:27:37 2008 From: musiccomposition at gmail.com (Benjamin Peterson) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:27:37 -0500 Subject: [python-committers] deferred blockers In-Reply-To: <211C9F2A-55F7-4A9F-BC90-1B140CC9E026@python.org> References: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> <211C9F2A-55F7-4A9F-BC90-1B140CC9E026@python.org> Message-ID: <1afaf6160809140927o58beee59q2d5e5694f241e044@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sep 13, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Antoine Pitrou >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Now 2.6rc1 is released, shouldn't the issues which have "deferred >>> blocker" status be put back in the "release blocker" category? >> >> I believe most of those issues are actually 3.0 ones that were demoted >> to deferred, so we can release 3.0rc1 on Wednesday. I think the ones >> applicable to 2.6 can be bumped up, though. > > Yes, please bump the 2.6 deferreds to release blockers. I just tried. You'll all be happy to know that we have no 2.6 deferred blockers. :) Maybe, I should bump some other ones up, so we feel stressed enough... -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's no place like 127.0.0.1." From martin at v.loewis.de Sun Sep 14 18:58:32 2008 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:58:32 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] deferred blockers In-Reply-To: <1afaf6160809140927o58beee59q2d5e5694f241e044@mail.gmail.com> References: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> <211C9F2A-55F7-4A9F-BC90-1B140CC9E026@python.org> <1afaf6160809140927o58beee59q2d5e5694f241e044@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48CD42B8.3090206@v.loewis.de> > You'll all be happy to know that we have no 2.6 deferred blockers. :) I thought this was the plan from the beginning: make sure that for rc1, there aren't any blockers - not even deferred ones. All 3.0 blockers got deferred before 2.6rc1, but the 2.6 blockers stayed. In case you wonder where they all went - I "resolved" a number of them by declaring that they shouldn't really block the release; in most cases, people then agreed (or didn't object). As a criterion, I asked "could that get fixed in 2.6.1 as well?", and I thought it could if - it's not a regression wrt. 2.5, and - it's not really that embarrassing, and - fixing it won't violate the policies that we had established for bug fix releases. It's the latter point I'd like to get more feedback on: for a few issues, I declared them as non-blockers because they dealt with the addition of -3 warnings, or lib2to3 additions. I would claim that it is fine if both 2to3 fixers and -3 warnings get added to 2.6.1, even though they are strictly-speaking new features. For 2to3, it should be fairly obvious: most of the time, adding fixers just means that you have to do less work. There is a small chance, of course, that adding a fixer may break conversion for a code base for which conversion previously worked. Still, since conversion is mostly a manual process, developers invoking it will still be able to deal with that. For -3 warnings, I would also assume that people normally don't run Python with -3 (i.e. in production), but do so only if they actually look into porting to 3.0. Adding a warning will then let them find out problems more quickly which they would otherwise need to find out the hard way, so I also don't see how adding such warnings could cause problems. Of course, if people disagree with these principles, it means that we either a) have those changes block 2.6 again, until they get resolved, or b) defer the change to 2.7. For 2to3 in particular, it would mean that the built-in version of 2to3 wouldn't change until 2.7 (except for clear bug fixes). Regards, Martin From guido at python.org Sun Sep 14 19:08:07 2008 From: guido at python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:08:07 -0700 Subject: [python-committers] deferred blockers In-Reply-To: <48CD42B8.3090206@v.loewis.de> References: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> <211C9F2A-55F7-4A9F-BC90-1B140CC9E026@python.org> <1afaf6160809140927o58beee59q2d5e5694f241e044@mail.gmail.com> <48CD42B8.3090206@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 9:58 AM, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > >> You'll all be happy to know that we have no 2.6 deferred blockers. :) > > I thought this was the plan from the beginning: make sure that for rc1, > there aren't any blockers - not even deferred ones. All 3.0 blockers > got deferred before 2.6rc1, but the 2.6 blockers stayed. > > In case you wonder where they all went - I "resolved" a number of them > by declaring that they shouldn't really block the release; in most > cases, people then agreed (or didn't object). Great -- thanks! > As a criterion, I asked "could that get fixed in 2.6.1 as well?", and > I thought it could if > - it's not a regression wrt. 2.5, and > - it's not really that embarrassing, and > - fixing it won't violate the policies that we had established for > bug fix releases. > > It's the latter point I'd like to get more feedback on: for a few > issues, I declared them as non-blockers because they dealt with > the addition of -3 warnings, or lib2to3 additions. > > I would claim that it is fine if both 2to3 fixers and -3 warnings > get added to 2.6.1, even though they are strictly-speaking new > features. For 2to3, it should be fairly obvious: most of the time, > adding fixers just means that you have to do less work. There is > a small chance, of course, that adding a fixer may break conversion > for a code base for which conversion previously worked. Still, since > conversion is mostly a manual process, developers invoking it will > still be able to deal with that. I would go further -- I don't see the fixers in 2to3 as part of the distribution in the same way as I see other library code. That is, in a sense I find it awkward that the fixers are all contained in the Lib tree -- this part of 2to3 feels like an application, not really a library, and clearly we should be doing all we can to improve the set of fixers over time! OTOH the APIs used to create fixers and to use lib2to3 for another purpose (e.g. for a hypothetical 3-to-2 converter or other transformations) should be considered as part of the standard library -- there's a lot of reusable code there! > For -3 warnings, I would also assume that people normally don't > run Python with -3 (i.e. in production), but do so only if they > actually look into porting to 3.0. Adding a warning will then let > them find out problems more quickly which they would otherwise need > to find out the hard way, so I also don't see how adding such warnings > could cause problems. This isn't so clear-cut as 2to3 fixers, but I think it is worthwhile to exempt -3 warnings from the "no new features" requirement, and instead to try to add more -3 warnings (and possibly remove or change existing ones) over time as we learn more about the subtleties of translating 2.6 code to 3.0. > Of course, if people disagree with these principles, it means > that we either > a) have those changes block 2.6 again, until they get resolved, or > b) defer the change to 2.7. For 2to3 in particular, it would mean > that the built-in version of 2to3 wouldn't change until 2.7 > (except for clear bug fixes). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) From solipsis at pitrou.net Sun Sep 14 19:14:01 2008 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:14:01 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] deferred blockers In-Reply-To: <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> References: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1221412441.13172.1.camel@fsol> Le samedi 13 septembre 2008 ? 20:12 -0500, Benjamin Peterson a ?crit : > I believe most of those issues are actually 3.0 ones that were demoted > to deferred, so we can release 3.0rc1 on Wednesday. I'm not sure I understand. I thought the 3.0 release blockers were demoted to deferred blockers so that we could release 2.6rc1, not 3.0rc1... Otherwise it seems to defeat the whole point of having release blockers. (perhaps I'm just lacking coffee) From ncoghlan at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 00:15:30 2008 From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:15:30 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] deferred blockers In-Reply-To: <48CD42B8.3090206@v.loewis.de> References: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> <211C9F2A-55F7-4A9F-BC90-1B140CC9E026@python.org> <1afaf6160809140927o58beee59q2d5e5694f241e044@mail.gmail.com> <48CD42B8.3090206@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <48CD8D02.4060102@gmail.com> Martin v. L?wis wrote: > It's the latter point I'd like to get more feedback on: for a few > issues, I declared them as non-blockers because they dealt with > the addition of -3 warnings, or lib2to3 additions. Allowing both of those in 2.6.1 seems reasonable to me - and if any of the 2to3 fixers seems potentially problematic, then we can put them in the 'disabled by default' category. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org From barry at python.org Mon Sep 15 15:34:48 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:34:48 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] deferred blockers In-Reply-To: <48CD42B8.3090206@v.loewis.de> References: <1221352671.6183.0.camel@fsol> <1afaf6160809131812t7082e837v134bd1629b8c59d0@mail.gmail.com> <211C9F2A-55F7-4A9F-BC90-1B140CC9E026@python.org> <1afaf6160809140927o58beee59q2d5e5694f241e044@mail.gmail.com> <48CD42B8.3090206@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 14, 2008, at 12:58 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote: >> > I thought this was the plan from the beginning: make sure that for > rc1, > there aren't any blockers - not even deferred ones. All 3.0 blockers > got deferred before 2.6rc1, but the 2.6 blockers stayed. > > In case you wonder where they all went - I "resolved" a number of them > by declaring that they shouldn't really block the release; in most > cases, people then agreed (or didn't object). > > As a criterion, I asked "could that get fixed in 2.6.1 as well?", and > I thought it could if > - it's not a regression wrt. 2.5, and > - it's not really that embarrassing, and > - fixing it won't violate the policies that we had established for > bug fix releases. Martin, I agree with your take on this, and Guido's follow up. Thanks. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSM5keHEjvBPtnXfVAQIGugQAkYDZatppkBTysc1+wJ1raamgBdIqFXA/ +/jUiEv6dRHIhfu+CqAhCD+M8h5sWl2iZ+VZaHqvgiJdv7nU1Zd+oQCp4Iw42rOP Eqy/bR1euBO3tQxqrq5UyFVZjCuYEIvwJP0odiFoa/ygc7J7/yuu2EEysG97Xgo7 urZRlZO2UGw= =T3PN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From barry at python.org Thu Sep 18 03:35:23 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:35:23 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] trunk and 3.0 branch frozen Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm freezing the trunk and 3.0 branches to do 2.6rc2 and 3.0rc1 tonight. Please do not commit to either tree unless you check with me first on irc, #python-dev @ freenode. Mark H is right now looking at 4 test failures on Windows: bsddb3, sys, site and wsgiref. Other than that, 2.6 full of green buildbots and has no release blockers open. I'm going to do 3.0rc1 even though we have some deferred blockers for 3.0. The 3.0 bots look pretty green, so I think it's worth it. Thanks, - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSNGwXHEjvBPtnXfVAQKDpwQAq12eDKYrSm344OlAb5w5ZdpJc6EBh3mF 1rMTadiO8U2lVhVIrFzc8PeX60POqmIuTZADoh/Xu+hOQxPkYO+weUxLVNVZyohH 1hPjhU5fAFXVvEmWp05vVVwkZ/fSr7kCbmYiA3/uZI72ePg+WcCP6esdGkkdz8zf ZP2KzEXwjHw= =pykn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From barry at python.org Thu Sep 18 07:40:55 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:40:55 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] the branches are open Message-ID: <25814685-3D1F-4FCB-87A7-036AE97A5F9B@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 unfreeze -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSNHp53EjvBPtnXfVAQLnxQP/R0Rv6vlvOlyqoewD8CS3zVXOTuteZ86n 0Gm4APGSb6D6VKggfTxnpbzszabMN7ivWq1j8cq3RYm5FQ9moOEgWekgRV3wZgJ2 Xskr0y/W08WlJrIcEIc26qy3CiCWR/0WARRX0gkyA5Nx94JFp5evMy/sHYuvRTNu cqw7/JCNpq8= =y/65 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ocean-city at m2.ccsnet.ne.jp Fri Sep 19 14:06:03 2008 From: ocean-city at m2.ccsnet.ne.jp (Hirokazu Yamamoto) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:06:03 +0900 Subject: [python-committers] VC6 related change Message-ID: <000d01c91a50$16a619e0$0200a8c0@whiterabc2znlh> Hello. Can I commit VC6 related patch without review? I want to bump up external library versions (bsddb, sqlite3 etc) to follow PCBuild. Thank you. From barry at python.org Fri Sep 19 15:27:34 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:27:34 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] VC6 related change In-Reply-To: <000d01c91a50$16a619e0$0200a8c0@whiterabc2znlh> References: <000d01c91a50$16a619e0$0200a8c0@whiterabc2znlh> Message-ID: <5D9AAF08-1E28-4A38-99D2-A24F11F9EA05@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 19, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Hirokazu Yamamoto wrote: > Hello. Can I commit VC6 related patch without review? > I want to bump up external library versions (bsddb, sqlite3 etc) to > follow > PCBuild. Since we're in release candidate, please have one of the Windows experts review your changes. If this is a blocker issue for the final release, open a bug and set the priority to 'release blocker' and attach your diff to the issue. Thanks, - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSNOoxnEjvBPtnXfVAQKAdgP+LAtrA/z0/uq4GNibobIS9IHMky4h87sL ADBrqPIhtv5/2w/UPVOhWEGiCKJmX9vI91CHCZLzSJDDI2D1NtgSehKi3o9vZ5RR HB7gmsfcZUARrTH+l02N5uFZX8Uq4W0cfGoe91oBZAiHFNP0roovJFEUUcRtn34D CvpC6LasrO4= =nqSE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ocean-city at m2.ccsnet.ne.jp Fri Sep 19 15:32:07 2008 From: ocean-city at m2.ccsnet.ne.jp (Hirokazu Yamamoto) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:32:07 +0900 Subject: [python-committers] VC6 related change References: <000d01c91a50$16a619e0$0200a8c0@whiterabc2znlh> <5D9AAF08-1E28-4A38-99D2-A24F11F9EA05@python.org> Message-ID: <000a01c91a5c$1c8436b0$0200a8c0@whiterabc2znlh> > Since we're in release candidate, please have one of the Windows > experts review your changes. If this is a blocker issue for the final > release, open a bug and set the priority to 'release blocker' and > attach your diff to the issue. > > Thanks, > - -Barry OK, Thanks. From gh at ghaering.de Mon Sep 22 09:10:42 2008 From: gh at ghaering.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gerhard_H=E4ring?=) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:10:42 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] VC6 related change In-Reply-To: <5D9AAF08-1E28-4A38-99D2-A24F11F9EA05@python.org> References: <000d01c91a50$16a619e0$0200a8c0@whiterabc2znlh> <5D9AAF08-1E28-4A38-99D2-A24F11F9EA05@python.org> Message-ID: <48D744F2.7080909@ghaering.de> Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 19, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Hirokazu Yamamoto wrote: > >> Hello. Can I commit VC6 related patch without review? >> I want to bump up external library versions (bsddb, sqlite3 etc) to >> follow >> PCBuild. > > Since we're in release candidate, please have one of the Windows experts > review your changes. If this is a blocker issue for the final release, > open a bug and set the priority to 'release blocker' and attach your > diff to the issue. Barry, sorry if you were aware of that already, but VC6 isn't the compiler for the official builds. The VC6 files are "only" alternative "Makefiles". -- Gerhard From mhammond at skippinet.com.au Mon Sep 22 10:02:25 2008 From: mhammond at skippinet.com.au (Mark Hammond) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:02:25 +1000 Subject: [python-committers] VC6 related change In-Reply-To: <48D744F2.7080909@ghaering.de> References: <000d01c91a50$16a619e0$0200a8c0@whiterabc2znlh> <5D9AAF08-1E28-4A38-99D2-A24F11F9EA05@python.org> <48D744F2.7080909@ghaering.de> Message-ID: <003b01c91c89$90871940$b1954bc0$@com.au> > sorry if you were aware of that already, but VC6 isn't the compiler for > the official builds. The VC6 files are "only" alternative "Makefiles". As far as I'm concerned, +1 for Gerhard being able to checkin vc6 related makefiles to the trunk without review (notwithstanding any other restrictions imposed by the release manager, etc.) Cheers, Mark From barry at python.org Mon Sep 22 14:30:03 2008 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:30:03 -0400 Subject: [python-committers] VC6 related change In-Reply-To: <003b01c91c89$90871940$b1954bc0$@com.au> References: <000d01c91a50$16a619e0$0200a8c0@whiterabc2znlh> <5D9AAF08-1E28-4A38-99D2-A24F11F9EA05@python.org> <48D744F2.7080909@ghaering.de> <003b01c91c89$90871940$b1954bc0$@com.au> Message-ID: <38BD75A6-F39F-49EB-8FF7-C2D90987AA24@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 22, 2008, at 4:02 AM, Mark Hammond wrote: >> sorry if you were aware of that already, but VC6 isn't the compiler >> for >> the official builds. The VC6 files are "only" alternative >> "Makefiles". > > As far as I'm concerned, +1 for Gerhard being able to checkin vc6 > related > makefiles to the trunk without review (notwithstanding any other > restrictions imposed by the release manager, etc.) I wasn't aware, thanks for the clarification. If it's not in the critical path for building our Windows binaries, and Mark is rubber- stamping your changes , and Martin is okay with it, then as long as the tree is open I'm okay with it. If it's not something we test, and we break it, then we'll just have to fix it in a point release. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSNePzHEjvBPtnXfVAQKbnQQAgDivYpJ9tXFXJY6vrgl3PyMbrfADEKnM HotR4JeI6wbM0Z5Uj5k+3MvGhCcphozd3FFr4Ig3VDFDWSesY2FR7LjHx7WnljmO gC2FEBhDgKPx/A0HpP6SqSbH7znHHZZ0FDYUZsWByDh3Y4rkR4bDhAOh9SDklz5z oUA+eVSagr4= =D0z4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From martin at v.loewis.de Mon Sep 22 22:57:47 2008 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:57:47 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] VC6 related change In-Reply-To: <003b01c91c89$90871940$b1954bc0$@com.au> References: <000d01c91a50$16a619e0$0200a8c0@whiterabc2znlh> <5D9AAF08-1E28-4A38-99D2-A24F11F9EA05@python.org> <48D744F2.7080909@ghaering.de> <003b01c91c89$90871940$b1954bc0$@com.au> Message-ID: <48D806CB.8040000@v.loewis.de> > As far as I'm concerned, +1 for Gerhard being able to checkin vc6 related > makefiles to the trunk without review (notwithstanding any other > restrictions imposed by the release manager, etc.) Hmm - it might be easier to just review them. What's the patch number again? Regards, Martin From bob at redivi.com Wed Sep 24 06:56:47 2008 From: bob at redivi.com (Bob Ippolito) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:56:47 -0700 Subject: [python-committers] json decoder speedups, any time left for 2.6? Message-ID: <6a36e7290809232156k3fdfffdbx55e1f464863d076f@mail.gmail.com> I'm out of town this week for a conference (ICFP/CUFP in Victoria) and my hotel's connection has been bad enough such that I can't get any Real Work done so I've managed to hammer on the json library's decoding quite a bit instead. I just released simplejson 1.9.3 which improves decoding performance by about 2x and I've got some more changes along the way in trunk for 1.9.4 that will increase it even further (over 3x my original 1.9.2 benchmark perf). How much time do I have left to get this into Python 2.6? FWIW the changes are all on the Python side, no C code has been harmed (yet). The test suite still passes of course. Added bonus is that simplejson trunk only uses the public and documented re interface, no more sre scanner stuff. -bob (I had originally sent this to python-dev out of habit without CCing here, and it appears I'm not currently subscribed there so it's in the moderation queue. Sorry about that!) From martin at v.loewis.de Wed Sep 24 07:13:00 2008 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:13:00 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] json decoder speedups, any time left for 2.6? In-Reply-To: <6a36e7290809232156k3fdfffdbx55e1f464863d076f@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a36e7290809232156k3fdfffdbx55e1f464863d076f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48D9CC5C.6090601@v.loewis.de> Bob Ippolito wrote: > How much time do I > have left to get this into Python 2.6? I think for mere speedups, it is already too late for 2.6. Only the most release-critical bugs can be fixed still (i.e. even plain bug fixes need to wait for 2.6.1 now). IMO, performance improvements are clearly out of scope now. Regards, Martin From theller at ctypes.org Wed Sep 24 19:21:38 2008 From: theller at ctypes.org (Thomas Heller) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:21:38 +0200 Subject: [python-committers] Review requested for issue 3547 Message-ID: <48DA7722.2040103@ctypes.org> I'd like to request review (or whatever is needed to get permission to fix this bug and commit the patch into trunk, py3k and release25-maint). http://bugs.python.org/issue3547 -- Thanks, Thomas