I've had a couple of queries about whether PSF-2006-001 merits a 2.3.6.
Personally, I lean towards no - 2.4 was nearly two years ago now. But I'm
open to other opinions - I guess people see the phrase buffer overrun and
they get scared.
Plus once 2.4.4 final is out next week, I'll have cut 12
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community,
I'm happy to announce the release of Python 2.4.4 (release candidate 1).
Python 2.4.4 is a bug-fix release. While Python 2.5 is the latest
version of Python, we're making this release for people who are
still running Python
Anthony Baxter wrote:
16 releases in 12 months would just about make me go crazy.
is there any way we could further automate or otherwise streamline or
distribute the release process ?
ideally, releasing (earlier release + well-defined patch set) should be
fairly trivial, compared to releasing
Hi Fredrik,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:35:23PM +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
NoddyType = PyType_Setup(noddy.Noddy, sizeof(Noddy));
It doesn't address the problem Martin explained (you can put neither
NULLs nor stubs in tp_xxx fields that are beyond the C extension
module's sizeof(Nobby)).
M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is hard to believe. I've been in that business for a few
years and so far have not found an OS/hardware/network combination
with the mentioned features.
Surely you must have - unless there is another M.-A. Lemburg in IT!
Some of the specialist
Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be convenient, yes, but the question isn't always 'threads or
processes?' In my experience (not to say that it is more or better than
anyone else's), when going multi-process, the expense on some platforms
is significant enough to want to
Sorry. I was on holiday, and then buried this when sorting out my
thousands of Emails on my return, partly because I had to look up the
information!
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| afaik the kernel only sends signals to threads that don't have them
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Hudson schrieb:
According to [1], all python needs to do to avoid this problem is
block all signals in all but the main thread;
Argh, no: then people who call system() from non-main threads end up
running
You may already know about a similar project a friend of mine (hi,
Steffen!) did a few years ago called Python Object Sharing (POSH). This
was however unix specific and relied on fork and SYSV IPC iirc. I see
he has a SF projectpage here:
http://poshmodule.sourceforge.net/
(doesn't seem to be
Hello all,I'd like to propose the following change to ConfigParser.py.I won't call it a bug-fix because I don't know the relevant standards.This change will enable multiline comments as follows:[section]
item=value ;first of multiline comment
;second of multiline comment
Right now the behaviour
Hello
there.
I just got round to
do some comparative runs of 2.5 32 bit Release, built with visual studio 2003
and 2005.
Here the figures
(pybench with default arguments)
.NET
2003:
Test
minimum average operation
On 10/10/06, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josiah Carlson wrote:
Presumably with this library you have created, you have also written a
fast object encoder/decoder (like marshal or pickle). If it isn't any
faster than cPickle or marshal, then users may bypass the module and opt
On 10/10/06, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the really interesting thing here is a ready-made threading-style API, I
think. reimplementing queues, locks, and semaphores can be a reasonable
amount of work; might as well use an existing implementation.
Really, it is a matter of
From: Kristján V. Jónsson
I think we should start considering to make PCBuild8 a supported build.
+1 and not just for the free speed-up. VC8 is what more and more Windows
developers will have on there machines. Without a supported build, it becomes
much harder to make patches or build
Hi all,
I've been looking at python 2.5 today and what I notices is absense of
spawnvp with this comment in os.py:
# At the moment, Windows doesn't implement spawnvp[e],
# so it won't have spawnlp[e] either.
I'm wondering, why so? Searching MSDN I can see that these functions
are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 4:08 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I've had a couple of queries about whether PSF-2006-001 merits a
2.3.6.
Personally, I lean towards no - 2.4 was nearly two years ago now.
But I'm
open to other opinions - I guess people see
Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I've offered in the past to dust off my release manager cap and do a
2.3.6 release. Having not done one in a long while, the most
daunting part for me is getting the website updated,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Perhaps all that is needed from both a practical and public relations
viewpoint is the release of a 2.3.5U4 security patch as a separate
file
listed just after 2.3.5 on the source downloads page
On 10/12/06, Alexey Borzenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least when I did it with my copy, nt.spawnvp seems to work fine...
Hi everyone again. I've created patch for spawn*p*, as well as for
exec*p* against trunk, so that when possible it uses crt's execvp[e]
(defined via HAVE_EXECVP, if there
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006, Alexey Borzenkov wrote:
Should I submit it to sourceforge as a patch, or someone can review it as is?
Always submit patches; that guarantees your work won't get lost.
--
Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/
If you don't know what your
On Thursday 12 October 2006 18:18, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Anthony Baxter wrote:
16 releases in 12 months would just about make me go crazy.
is there any way we could further automate or otherwise streamline or
distribute the release process ?
It's already pretty heavily automated (see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I
know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build
similarly for
Fred. I don't know what Martin has
Kristján V. Jónsson wrote:
This is an improvement of another 3.5 %.
In all, we have a performance increase of more than 10%.
Granted, this is from a single set of runs, but I think we should
start considering to make PCBuild8 a supported build.
Kristján, I wonder if the performance
On Oct 12, 2006, at 10:25 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I
know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build
On Friday 13 October 2006 06:25, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I
know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build
similarly for
Fred. I don't know what
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
Why can't we get buildbot to do most or all of this?
Very easy. Because somebody has to set it up. I estimate
a man month or so before it works.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build similarly for
Fred. I don't know what Martin has to do for the Windows build.
Actually, for 2.3.x, I wouldn't do the Windows
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 4:08 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I've had a couple of queries about whether PSF-2006-001 merits a
2.3.6.
Personally, I lean towards no - 2.4 was nearly two years ago now.
But I'm
open to other
Fredrik Lundh schrieb:
ideally, releasing (earlier release + well-defined patch set) should be
fairly trivial, compared to releasing (new release from trunk). what do
we have to do to make it easier to handle that case?
For the Windows release, I doubt there is much one can do. The
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 06:43:40AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 06:25, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I
know, the Mac
build is a single command to run for
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:30:49PM +0200, Georg Brandl wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I've offered in the past to dust off my release manager cap and do a
2.3.6 release. Having not done one in a long while, the most
daunting part for me is getting the website updated, since I have
none
Alexey Borzenkov schrieb:
Should I submit it to sourceforge as a patch, or someone can review it as is?
Please consider also exposing _wspawnvp, depending on whether path
argument is a Unicode object or not. See PEP 277 for guidance.
Since this would go into 2.6, support for Windows 95 isn't
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:00:09PM +0200, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
Kristj?n V. J?nsson schrieb:
This is an improvement of another 3.5 %.
In all, we have a performance increase of more than 10%.
Granted, this is from a single set of runs, but I think we should start
considering to make
Gregory P. Smith schrieb:
three macs with some virtual machines could take care of this (damn
apple for not allowing their stupid OS to be virtualized). that said,
i'm not volunteering to setup an automated system for this but i've
got good ideas how to do it if i ever find time or someone
Thomas Heller schrieb:
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
Thomas Heller schrieb:
1. The __str__ of a WindowsError instance hides the 'real' windows
error number. So, in 2.4 print error_instance would print
for example:
[Errno 1002] Das Fenster kann die gesendete Nachricht nicht verarbeiten.
On Friday 13 October 2006 07:00, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Kristján V. Jónsson schrieb:
This is an improvement of another 3.5 %.
In all, we have a performance increase of more than 10%.
Granted, this is from a single set of runs, but I think we should start
considering to make PCBuild8 a
On Friday 13 October 2006 05:30, Georg Brandl wrote:
I'm I the only one who feels that the website is a big workflow problem?
Assuming you meant Am I, then I absolutely agree with you.
--
Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
IMHO thats a backwards view; I'm with Barry. Requiring human
intervention to do anything other than press the big green go button
to launch the official release build process is an opportunity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Of course, that makes the idea die here and now. Without volunteers
to do the actual work, it just won't happen.
True, and there's no carrot/stick of a salary to entice people into
doing what
On 10/13/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please consider also exposing _wspawnvp, depending on whether path
argument is a Unicode object or not. See PEP 277 for guidance.
Since this would go into 2.6, support for Windows 95 isn't mandatory.
Umm... do you mean that spawn*p* on
On 10/12/06, Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 05:30, Georg Brandl wrote: I'm I the only one who feels that the website is a big workflow problem?Assuming you meant Am I, then I absolutely agree with you.
I have touched the web site since the Pyramid switch and thus
Gregory P. Smith schrieb:
i read that as just suggesting that updates should be checked into the
release25-maint tree to get PCBuild8 working out of the box for anyone
who wants to build python from source with vs2005.
That's passive voice (should be checked). I think it is unrealistic
to
Brett Cannon wrote:
On 10/12/06, *Anthony Baxter* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 05:30, Georg Brandl wrote:
I'm I the only one who feels that the website is a big workflow
problem?
Assuming you meant Am I, then I absolutely
Dave Abrahams schrieb:
The only problem here is that there appears to be a lag in the release of
ActivePython after Python itself is released.
Is there any chance of putting up just the debugging libraries a little
earlier?
I may be out of context here: what is the precise problem in
On Friday 13 October 2006 07:34, Barry Warsaw wrote:
i'm not volunteering to setup an automated system for this but i've
got good ideas how to do it if i ever find time or someone wants to
chat offline. :(
I wish I had the cycles to volunteer to help out implementing this. :(
Well,
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
marshal hasn't changed in many years:
Maybe not, but I was given to understand that it's
regarded as a private format that's not guaranteed
to remain constant across versions. So even if
it happens not to change, it wouldn't be wise to
rely on that.
--
Greg
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Abrahams schrieb:
The only problem here is that there appears to be a lag in the release of
ActivePython after Python itself is released.
Is there any chance of putting up just the debugging libraries a little
earlier?
I may be out of
Forgot to include python-dev...
On 10/13/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm... do you mean that spawn*p* on python 2.5 is an absolute no?
Yes. No new features can be added to Python 2.5.x; Python 2.5 has
already been released.
Ugh... that's just not fair. Because of this there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 12, 2006, at 8:46 PM, Alexey Borzenkov wrote:
Ugh... that's just not fair. Because of this there will be no spawn*p*
in python for another two years. x_x
Correct, but don't let that stop you. That's what distutils and the
Cheeseshop are
[Alexey Borzenkov]
Umm... do you mean that spawn*p* on python 2.5 is an absolute no?
[Martin v. Löwis]
Yes. No new features can be added to Python 2.5.x; Python 2.5 has
already been released.
[Alexey Borzenkov]
Ugh... that's just not fair. Because of this there will be no spawn*p*
in python
Michael Foord wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
On 10/12/06, *Anthony Baxter* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 05:30, Georg Brandl wrote:
I'm I the only one who feels that the website is a big workflow
problem?
Assuming you meant Am I,
David Abrahams schrieb:
At the moment I have too weak a server to provide those files, but
that will change very soon. All that said, the Python and ActiveState
teams need to be aware of each and every Python release and go through
a standard release procedure anyway, whereas -- except for
Alexey Borzenkov schrieb:
On 10/13/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm... do you mean that spawn*p* on python 2.5 is an absolute no?
Yes. No new features can be added to Python 2.5.x; Python 2.5 has
already been released.
Ugh... that's just not fair. Because of this there will
On Friday 13 October 2006 12:56, Steve Holden wrote:
The real problem is the more or less complete lack of incremental
rebuild, which does make site generation time-consuming.
That's _part_ of it. There's other issues. For instance, there's probably 4
places where the list of releases is
On Friday 13 October 2006 10:46, Alexey Borzenkov wrote:
But the fact that I have to use similar code anywhere I need to use
spawnlp is not fair. Notice that _spawnvpe is simply a clone of
_execvpe from os.py, maybe if the problem is new API in c source, this
approach could be used in os.py?
Greg Ewing wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
marshal hasn't changed in many years:
Maybe not, but I was given to understand that it's
regarded as a private format that's not guaranteed
to remain constant across versions. So even if
it happens not to change, it wouldn't be wise to
rely on
56 matches
Mail list logo
