Re: [Python-Dev] Python version numbers

Barry Warsaw writes: > Python 21.12 anyone? :) Well, for one thing we know that version 42 will be perfect! With current versioning policy, it will take a loong time to get there Steve -- Associate Professor Division of Policy and Planning Science

Re: [Python-Dev] Are undocumented functions part of the stable ABI?

As you may guess from the silence, it may be hard to get a definitive answer to this question -- PEP 384's author has stopped actively participating in the Python community and I'm not sure if any core developers currently consider themselves to be the "guardians of the ABI". That said, from a

[Python-Dev] Timeline for Pull request reviews in 3.8

Can anyone enlighten me on what the expected time-line is for reviewing pull requests made on 3.8. I made a few simple fixes in Early March - and I understand everyone is busy. What is the time line and cut off dates for backports to 3.7 and 3.6. I also made a documentation change (based on

[Python-Dev] GH-6392: Enum, __contains__, TypeError, and DeprecationWarnings

Oh my! ;) So, after the previous discussion about when __contains__ should raise TypeError instead of returning False, it seems there are a couple cases where a TypeError should be raised now: 1) non-enum-instance in EnumClass 2) anything in enum_instance 3) non-flag-instance in flag

Re: [Python-Dev] gdb support could use some love

> Modifying GitHub Labels is only available to people with commit privs and, > IIRC, Skip asked to drop his commit privs a few years ago (although I'm sure > we would all be happy to welcome him back!). Alas, then I would feel some obligation to be semi-responsive to buggy things in areas where

Re: [Python-Dev] gdb support could use some love

> You created the PR from your local python repository master branch. I have > done this, with negative consequences. I believe you will find life with > git easier if you never edit your master branch, or at least, never make > local commits to it, and only commit to and create PRs from

Re: [Python-Dev] gdb support could use some love

On Apr 5, 2018, at 14:48, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 4/5/2018 5:47 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote: >>> There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one with a >>> PR in need of review for 3.6+. >> I rejected one (which assumed everyone now uses a python-aware gdb),

Re: [Python-Dev] gdb support could use some love

On 4/5/2018 5:47 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote: There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one with a PR in need of review for 3.6+. I rejected one (which assumed everyone now uses a python-aware gdb), commented on another (ceval.c-related name changes in several commands),

Re: [Python-Dev] ssl module and LibreSSL CVE-2018-8970

+1. Thanks! Which tests? On Wednesday, April 4, 2018, Christian Heimes wrote: > Hi, > > I like to share the story of a critical security bug with you. Contrary > to other issues in TLS/SSL, it's a story with happy ending. Nobody was > harmed. The bug was fixed before it

Re: [Python-Dev] gdb support could use some love

On Apr 5, 2018, at 12:35, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 02:49 Skip Montanaro wrote: >> > There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one with >> > a PR in need of review for 3.6+. >> >> I rejected one (which assumed

Re: [Python-Dev] gdb support could use some love

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 02:49 Skip Montanaro wrote: > > There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one > with a PR in need of review for 3.6+. > > I rejected one (which assumed everyone now uses a python-aware gdb), > commented on another

Re: [Python-Dev] ssl module and LibreSSL CVE-2018-8970

Nice work! Something to add to our "finding C compiler bugs" list of accomplishments.  On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 13:39 Christian Heimes, wrote: > Hi, > > I like to share the story of a critical security bug with you. Contrary > to other issues in TLS/SSL, it's a story with

Re: [Python-Dev] gdb support could use some love

> There are a bunch of open issues regarding gdb support including one with a > PR in need of review for 3.6+. I rejected one (which assumed everyone now uses a python-aware gdb), commented on another (ceval.c-related name changes in several commands), and created a PR for third (documentation