On 10 Sep, 2009, at 18:23, Ned Deily wrote:
In article <9d506035-7c2d-4929-a134-e88eeb7b7...@python.org>, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote:On Sep 9, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Ned Deily wrote:In article <11a6545d-7204-4f61-b55b-1cc77cb56...@python.org>, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote:I still want to release by the 25th, but I'd be willing to move the rc to Monday the 21st. We're really just trying to avoid a brown bag moment, so that should give us enough time to double check the releases.The recent release of OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) has triggered a fair amount of 2.6 bug tracker activity, since 10.6 now includes 2.6 (2.6.1) and a 64-bit version at that. A number of patches have either just been checked-in over the past couple of weeks or are getting some exposure before check-in. Given the timing and the (appropriate)infrequency of 2.6.x releases, I think it would be unfortunate to push2.6.3 out the door without ensuring that it works well on 10.6. Therefore, I propose that 2.6.3 should have 10.6 compatibility as a "release goal". Without trying to put Ronald on the spot (too much!), it would be a good idea to get his assessment where things stand wrt 2.6 on 10.6 before setting a final release date.I'm hoping that Python won't have any issues building and running on 10.6, but I don't have it yet so I can't personally test it out. How would you quantify "works well"? Do you have any thoughts ontests you'd run other than the standard test suite? If 2.6.3 is shownto pass its test suite on 10.5.x, is that good enough? Are the specific bug fixes necessary for 10.6?Running the standard test suite on 10.6 and seeing no regressions compared to the same suite on 10.5.x seems a reasonable necessaryrequirement. We have the resources to do that. Beyond that, as Ronald suggests, I think it important to go through the open issues in the nextcouple of days and identify and flag any potential release-blockers (besides the IDLE problem already mentioned).
The IDLE issue is IMHO a release blocker, as is issue 6851.
One other open issue is 64-bit support in the python.org OS X installer.There have been discussions and requests in the past and, with Apple providing 64-bit out of the box in 10.6, it seems like it's time to provide something on python.org as well. One option: continue to provide a 32-bit only installer for ppc and i386 for 10.3.9 and beyond and add a second installer image with 3-way (ppc, i386, x86_64 but no ppc64) 32/64 for 10.5 and beyond. Ronald, is that your current thinking?
64-bit support can wait until after 2.6.3 is released. I need time to work out what's needed go create a good installer (and not just running the current build-installer.py script because that includes to much for a binary that doesn't run on 10.3.9). That won't happen before 2.6.3 is released because I'm too thinly stretched even without working on that.
Ronald
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
