[Python-Dev] Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 87
wa2n39 at gmail.com
wa2n39 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 11 14:36:29 CET 2009
Stop email
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
-----Original Message-----
From: python-dev-request at python.org
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:09:45
To: <python-dev at python.org>
Subject: Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 87
Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to
python-dev at python.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
python-dev-request at python.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
python-dev-owner at python.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Python-Dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 2.7/3.2 release schedule (Martin v. L?wis)
2. Re: 2.7/3.2 release schedule (Nick Coghlan)
3. Re: Reworking the GIL (Antoine Pitrou)
4. Re: Status of the Buildbot fleet and related bugs (Antoine Pitrou)
5. Re: Status of the Buildbot fleet and related bugs
(Martin v. L?wis)
6. Re: 2.7/3.2 release schedule (Benjamin Peterson)
7. Re: 2.7/3.2 release schedule (Martin v. L?wis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:05:41 +0100
From: "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de>
To: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
Cc: Python Development <python-dev at python.org>
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7/3.2 release schedule
Message-ID: <4AF9D5A5.5000707 at v.loewis.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> PEP 3003 states that Python 3.2 will be released 18-24 months after
>> Python 3.1. Python 3.1 was released on June 2009-06-27 [1], so
>> theoretically Python 3.2 should be released not before 2010-12-19 [2].
>
> The PEP 3003 text isn't allowing for the fact that 3.1 is "3.0 as it
> should have been", so the starting point for the 18-24 month rule of
> thumb is actually back when 3.0 was released in Dec 2008. This was
> discussed a fair bit back when the decision was made to do the short
> release cycle between 3.0 and 3.1 in order to address some of the more
> glaring shortcomings of the 3.0 release.
I agree with everybody else who said that
a) there was *no* consensus that the release cycle for 3.2 should be
shortened because of 3.1 being released early. I also remember the
opposite.
b) whatever past discussion may have been, it would be a mistake to
release 3.2 earlier than 18 months after 3.1.
Of course, 2.7 *could* be released by the proposed schedule; it just
would have to be decoupled from 3.2 (just as 2.6 eventually got
decoupled from 3.0).
I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e.
not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months.
Regards,
Martin
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:16:50 +1000
From: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
To: "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de>
Cc: Python Development <python-dev at python.org>
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7/3.2 release schedule
Message-ID: <4AF9D842.5000808 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Martin v. L?wis wrote:
>>> PEP 3003 states that Python 3.2 will be released 18-24 months after
>>> Python 3.1. Python 3.1 was released on June 2009-06-27 [1], so
>>> theoretically Python 3.2 should be released not before 2010-12-19 [2].
>> The PEP 3003 text isn't allowing for the fact that 3.1 is "3.0 as it
>> should have been", so the starting point for the 18-24 month rule of
>> thumb is actually back when 3.0 was released in Dec 2008. This was
>> discussed a fair bit back when the decision was made to do the short
>> release cycle between 3.0 and 3.1 in order to address some of the more
>> glaring shortcomings of the 3.0 release.
>
> I agree with everybody else who said that
>
> a) there was *no* consensus that the release cycle for 3.2 should be
> shortened because of 3.1 being released early. I also remember the
> opposite.
>
> b) whatever past discussion may have been, it would be a mistake to
> release 3.2 earlier than 18 months after 3.1.
Fair enough - I didn't remember that discussion all that well, but
assumed it had reached that consensus due to the lack of comment when
Benjamin originally posted his proposed schedule. Your response and
Guido's clearly indicate otherwise :)
If that wasn't the consensus, then all the dates should slide back 6
months (i.e. no alphas until June 2010). (I actually prefer that since
it gives me a chance to find a cleaner approach to the runpy.run_path
problem, but didn't want to rehash a discussion I thought we had already
had)
> Of course, 2.7 *could* be released by the proposed schedule; it just
> would have to be decoupled from 3.2 (just as 2.6 eventually got
> decoupled from 3.0).
That leads to a 2.x version with features that aren't yet available in a
3.x version though. I thought we weren't planning on doing that anymore.
> I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e.
> not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months.
Or just have the timing be 18 months for 3.2 and 24 months for 2.7 (i.e.
push the first alpha of both back to June next year).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:26:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
To: python-dev at python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Reworking the GIL
Message-ID: <hdclq0$tov$1 at ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hello again,
I've now removed priority requests, tried to improve the internal doc a
bit, and merged the changes into py3k.
Afterwards, the new Windows 7 buildbot has hung in test_multiprocessing,
but I don't know whether it's related.
Regards
Antoine.
Guido van Rossum <guido <at> python.org> writes:
>
>
> I would remove them -- if and when we find there's a need for
> something like them I suspect it won't look like what you currently
> have, so it's better not to complexificate your current patch with
> them. (I would remove all traces, including the conditions passed into
> the end macros.)
>
> >> My only suggestion so far: the description could use more explicit
> >> documentation on the various variables and macros and how they
> >> combine.
> >
> > Is it before or after
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2009-
November/087482.html ?
>
> After. While that is already really helpful, not all the code is
> easily linked back to paragraphs in that comment block, and some
> variables are not mentioned by name in the block.
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:50:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
To: python-dev at python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of the Buildbot fleet and related
bugs
Message-ID: <hdcn72$2rl$1 at ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Le Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:53:27 -0500, R. David Murray a ?crit?:
> The buildbot waterfall is much greener now. Thanks to all who have
> contributed to making it so (and it hasn't just been Mark and Antoine
> and I, though we've been the most directly active (and yes, Mark, you
> did contribute several fixes!)).
The buildbots still show occasional oddities. For example, right now in
the page "http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/3.x/", some results have
disappeared (the columns for "AMD64 Ubuntu" builders have become empty).
Moreover, some buildslaves have gone back in time (they are building
r76188 after having built and tested r76195)... I swear the new GIL
doesn't include a time machine.
Regards
Antoine.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:06:14 +0100
From: "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de>
To: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
Cc: python-dev at python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Status of the Buildbot fleet and related
bugs
Message-ID: <4AF9E3D6.2000807 at v.loewis.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> The buildbot waterfall is much greener now. Thanks to all who have
>> contributed to making it so (and it hasn't just been Mark and Antoine
>> and I, though we've been the most directly active (and yes, Mark, you
>> did contribute several fixes!)).
>
> The buildbots still show occasional oddities. For example, right now in
> the page "http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/3.x/", some results have
> disappeared (the columns for "AMD64 Ubuntu" builders have become empty).
Yes, I noticed it too. It will go away after some page reloads.
> Moreover, some buildslaves have gone back in time (they are building
> r76188 after having built and tested r76195)... I swear the new GIL
> doesn't include a time machine.
That's because I resubmitted these changes after restarting the master.
Regards,
Martin
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:06:46 -0600
From: Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org>
To: Martin v. L?wis <martin at v.loewis.de>
Cc: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>, Python Development
<python-dev at python.org>
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7/3.2 release schedule
Message-ID:
<1afaf6160911101406t6da78accq8918eb4ceb1adca5 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2009/11/10 "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de>:
> I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e.
> not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months.
The problem with that is that there is a period of time where 2.x has
features which 3.x doesn't. My preference is to move back the whole
schedule 6 months.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:09:42 +0100
From: "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de>
To: Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org>
Cc: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>, Python Development
<python-dev at python.org>
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 2.7/3.2 release schedule
Message-ID: <4AF9E4A6.8070304 at v.loewis.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2009/11/10 "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de>:
>> I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e.
>> not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months.
>
> The problem with that is that there is a period of time where 2.x has
> features which 3.x doesn't. My preference is to move back the whole
> schedule 6 months.
Ok, fine with me as well. FWIW, I don't see that (2.7 released before
3.2) as a problem (but I understand that others might, for what I would
consider formal reasons).
Regards,
Martin
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev at python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
End of Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 87
******************************************
More information about the Python-Dev
mailing list