Carl Witty, 27.07.2010 21:40: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> Given that this is a change that may potentially break stuff and we don't >> even have tests for it, I think we should not let this delay the release of >> 0.13 any further than we already did anyway. Most people don't test >> development releases, so I expect a lot of bug reports after the release of >> 0.13 that will make 0.13.1 (and maybe even 0.13.2) a close follow-up anyway. >> >> However, if someone writes suitable tests for all affected special methods >> in a timely fashion, I'd be +0 on inclusion, just for the same reason of >> getting a 0.13.1 out soon anyway, in which we may still rip it back out. > > What would you consider suitable tests? All I can think of is to > write Cython classes that define all the special methods, then write > Python code that extracts each special method as a bound method and > then calls it. Can you think of more tests? > > I'll try to write these tests tonight. I'm sorry I didn't include > tests in the patch; it was getting late and I wanted to post what I > had before I went to bed.
That's fine, we're just too late in the release cycle (IMHO) to include potentially unsafe patches, especially when they lack dedicated tests. > What about the two known behavioral changes (__getattr__ turns into > __getattribute__ (mentioned on the ticket), and docstrings are lost > (as Robert suspected and I just verified)). Are these enough that you > don't think the patch should get in to 0.13? I'd say so. It breaks Python compatibility only for the sake of performance. > (In which case I would > start working on the next version of the patch, instead of writing > tests for this version.) Please do both. ;) Stefan _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
