[Python-Dev] Re: Switching to Discourse
On 15. 07. 22 13:18, Petr Viktorin wrote: - You can use discuss.python.org's “mailing list mode” (which subscribes you to all new posts), possibly with filtering and/or categorizing messages locally. Hello Petr, I suppose this might be the preferred way for the old farts like me who prefer mailing lists over a never-ending list of specific websites for each specific thing we are participating in. What would be a good resource to read about this - where do I learn how to use discuss.python.org's in the “mailing list mode” or what's the easiest way to filter incoming mail into directories based on discuss.python.org categories, how do I handle answers/threads, and finally, how to make this approach effective? Note that I am capable of googling some of this stuff, but I am preferably looking for your personal tips, as I always assumed you are a mail person, like I am. If you prefer to use the RSS feeds, I am interested in tips there as well. Thanks, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/DL4D4MO2CFGYVMUNAHVZ43M6LWOQMDKN/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [Release] Python 3.11.0b4 is still blocked
On 04. 07. 22 18:53, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote: Hi Miro, >> Are all release blockers automatically blocking the next beta? Yes. >> Or does it mean this should not be released in final (and hence neither rc) versions? Release blockers block also beta releases (if the RM decides so). >> Would it make sense to release 3.11.0b4 with some not-yet-fixed blockers? No, the reason is that fixes can introduce more regressions and those need to be fixed. If these fixes are pretty big we would be risking big changes in the RC phase, which we want to avoid. The idea is that the fixes to critical problems reported on beta x can be tested on beta x+1. At the end of the day, this is all subjected to the judgement of the release manager, and given how many release blockers we have been getting and how many of these have been reported past week *after* several attempts to release the next beta, I have decided to wait. Thanks. Understood. Additionally, I am considering pushing the full release some months in the future to allow for more betas, given how unstable 3.11 is currently. Some months sounds pretty big to me. Once the current beta is released, I'd be great to see some updated release schedule. We have just updated the main Python version Fedora 37 to 3.11 and we have some deadlines I'd like not to miss. https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-37/f-37-key-tasks.html 2022-08-23 - Fedora 37 Beta Freeze 2022-10-04 - Fedora 37 Final Freeze It would be really great to get something ABI stable at Beta Freeze and at least an RC at the Final Freeze. If that is not realistic, we would need to consider a revert. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/EP37TDGLFXE6TKQH6YBIQWSUGKWHC32U/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [Release] Python 3.11.0b4 is still blocked
On 24. 06. 22 14:25, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote: Hi everyone, A small update since the last communication from the release team regarding the status of Python 3.11.0b4. Unfortunately, even if we have fixed most of the original release blockers and 4 more that appear during this week, we still have a bunch of release blockers to deal with. One of them has been reported today. I would like to release the next beta next week if everything looks good, but there are also some items that need discussion... I was thinking. Are all release blockers automatically blocking the next beta? Or does it mean this should not be released in final (and hence neither rc) versions? Would it make sense to release 3.11.0b4 with some not-yet-fixed blockers? Assuming those are not regressions that happened after 3.11.0b3 was released. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/MHTM5MREGJCCJPHLZZQF6W4FWDWGAIDU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Expedited release of Python3.11.0b3!!
On 01. 06. 22 17:47, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote: Hi everyone, Due to a known incompatibility with pytest and the previous beta release (Python 3.11.0b2) and after some deliberation, me and the rest of the release team have decided to do an expedited release of Python 3.11.0b3 so the community can continue testing their packages with pytest and therefore testing the betas as expected. Thank you for doing this. I know it meant a lot of extra work for you and the release team. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/Q3VVS6WCETWHAT4RXJNYF4ZSWD7AJE7D/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] The second Python 3.11 beta (3.11.0b2) is available
On 01. 06. 22 0:39, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote: > Wouldn't it be more practical to bite the bullet and release b3 immediately with this fix? I sympathize with the sentiment and I am sorry that this is not practical but I am not fully convinced about the balance. Beta 3 is in one month and spinning an entire release is a multi-hour process for at least 3 people. I will discuss this with the release team but is unlikely. Understood. It's always a balance. For testing at fedora, you can temporarily patch beta2 and include this commit: Thanks. We already do that, my comment was motivated by the majority of upstream CI which do not use Fedora's Python 3.11 (yet?). Just for the heads up: I have sent an email to the release team and we are considering the proposal. Thanks for raising this with us. Awesome, thanks again. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/7KSGOK67MSYXUW3GZK6ZT4B6GUWLIB22/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] The second Python 3.11 beta (3.11.0b2) is available
On 01. 06. 22 0:02, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote: You may be able to work around this issue by preventing pytest to rewrite the assert statements by adding `--assert=plain` to the command line invocation until we have beta 3 next month. That's possibly dozens---if not hundreds---of CI setups that would require a temporary hack in order to be able to continue testing with Python 3.11. It's wonderful that they can and many already do that now. Wouldn't it be more practical to bite the bullet and release b3 immediately with this fix? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/AJ6EWHJZDRRX7FSA5JU5Y7YDCBYHGHTE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Add -P command line option to not add sys.path[0]
On 27. 04. 22 21:34, Steve Holden wrote: So would PYTHONDONTADDSCRIPTDIR=1 be a better choice? No because for other invocations, it prevents PWD being added, not the scriptdir. Both names are bad becasue they only describe half of what's it doing (or maybe the option should not do both, if it's hard to explain). -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/CJ5G2HEHISXFSLSXPC4F6TNVUBE2TKIX/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Add -P command line option to not add sys.path[0]
On 27. 04. 22 20:45, Barry wrote: On 27 Apr 2022, at 17:22, Victor Stinner wrote: Ok, you changed my mind and I added PYTHONDONTADDPATH0=1 env var. Example: Maybe the env var say what it is not adding rather then where it adds it. PYTHONDONTADDPWD=1 But it is not "just" the PWD. In the case of shebangs, it's actually the script's directory. E.g. a script in /usr/bin/ normally has /usr/bin/ in sys.path (which is not desired, hence we (Fedora) would probably add the -P flag to default shebangs for programs in /usr/bin/). -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/EZSJKN3WH7IP3EDJ5RFUV52RYBZX37GO/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Please update Cython *before* introcuding C API incompatible changes in Python
On 01. 02. 22 20:17, Irit Katriel wrote: Miro, I have offered before and my offer still stands to help fix this. Thank You! This was already fixed in the cython main branch by Stefan. The discussion now is about when to backport it to cython 0.29. I'm actually working on the backport now (learning cython in the process). But we will need to come up with a release plan that doesn't make me revert the cpython changes until after the 3.11 beta is released, because that would mean that I can only make them in 3.12. My comment was to the general discussion about how changes are done, not about this one in particular. Sorry if that was not clear. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/KTGVWNGRB5KDCDDZY6IGIVMXP2K3HEIK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Please update Cython *before* introcuding C API incompatible changes in Python
On 01. 02. 22 17:42, Victor Stinner wrote: The problem right now is the pressure put on Cython maintainers to fix Cython as soon as possible. IMO core developers who introduce incompatible changes should be more involved in the Cython changes, since Cython is a **key component** of the Python ecosystem. IMO knowing that a change breaks Cython and relying on "the community" to fix it is not a nice move. Well, that's my opinion;-) As the Fedora Python maintainer, I agree with this opinion. Broken Cython means we cannot actually test the next pre-release of CPython until it is fixed. And the CPython contributors who introduced the chnage are the most equipped ones to help fix it. I understand the desire to innovate fast, but making sure Cython works should be an essential part of the innovation process (even while Cython is not part of the CPython source tree, it's part of the bigger picture). -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/K7LZAJTGDBFDM5TEQE7EALZMXQTCMQUS/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Dropping AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED from configure.ac?
On 24. 01. 22 14:52, Christian Heimes wrote: On 24/01/2022 14.34, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello Pythonistas. In (development branch of) Fedora, we have juts upgraded to GCC 12. It seems that the presence of AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED in Python's autotools files (configure.ac?) is causing the __CHAR_UNSIGNED__ symbol to be defined in pyconfig.h and that breaks some other packages with GCC 12. The GCC maintainers told us it is a reserved symbol, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2043555 for details. It seems that using AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED is not recommended and also not required, but I must confess that I am pretty much horrified by autotools and I don't really know if we can get rid of AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED or not. I can test this in Fedora and I am quite sure it'll work, but I don't know the impact on all the other environments where CPython can be compiled. Is there anybody on this list who knows a reason we need to keep AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED around in 2022? Or is it safe to get rid of it? Let's find out! I have created draft PR https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/30851 and scheduled the PR on our buildbot fleet. It worked. I've opened https://bugs.python.org/issue46513 so we can actually ship it. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/CVUSDYEG4TFZTROIJFXRGTEYDMXY53QP/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Dropping AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED from configure.ac?
Hello Pythonistas. In (development branch of) Fedora, we have juts upgraded to GCC 12. It seems that the presence of AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED in Python's autotools files (configure.ac?) is causing the __CHAR_UNSIGNED__ symbol to be defined in pyconfig.h and that breaks some other packages with GCC 12. The GCC maintainers told us it is a reserved symbol, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2043555 for details. It seems that using AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED is not recommended and also not required, but I must confess that I am pretty much horrified by autotools and I don't really know if we can get rid of AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED or not. I can test this in Fedora and I am quite sure it'll work, but I don't know the impact on all the other environments where CPython can be compiled. Is there anybody on this list who knows a reason we need to keep AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED around in 2022? Or is it safe to get rid of it? Thanks, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/MPHZ3TGSHMSF7C4P7JEP2ZCYLRA3ERC5/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [PSA] OpenSSL 3.0 support is preliminary and experimental
On 09. 01. 22 19:39, Christian Heimes wrote: Hi, I would like to remind everybody that Python's support for OpenSSL 3.0 is preliminary [1]. Python compiles with OpenSSL 3.0.0 and simple code kinda works. However there are known performance regressions, missing features (e.g. usedforsecurity flag), and potential bugs cause by API incompatibilities. Due to the experimental state I advise against using Python with OpenSSL 3.0 in production. It may take a while until Python gains full support for the next version of OpenSSL. I have shifted my personal OSS time to more fun topics like performance and WASM. My work time is currently limited, too. Hello Christian. Do you think we should switch Python in Fedora 36 to OpenSSL 1.1.1? Python was naturally rebuilt with OpenSSL 3.0 when the distro upgraded OpenSSL. But the older version is still available. Note that Fedora 36 is also "preliminary" so we still have time to make this decision until +- the beta freeze/release (end of February, early March this year). -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/SJDXHQYESQV7JQNVKFAUWEQMNMDKLSXP/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Remove asyncore, asynchat and smtpd modules
On 16. 11. 21 1:36, Victor Stinner wrote: As I wrote previously, the DeprecationWarning warning is only emitted at runtime since Python 3.10. Since my PR got 5 approvals, I just merged it: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/29521 No mater the number of approvals, this removal does not follow the policy. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/RVSMVPGFWCTFDGHKHBZ72NMXXFT2EIIU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Regressions caused the recent work on ceval.c and frame objects
On 20. 09. 21 7:40, Christopher Barker wrote: Will all packages that use Cython have to upgrade Cython to work with 3.10? I am not sure if all, but many will do. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/MSKPT6P3JNVVDXLWXTVSB2B33DLNW6KA/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Regressions caused the recent work on ceval.c and frame objects
On 20. 09. 21 0:10, Thomas Grainger wrote: Are projects that ship pre-compiled wheels impacted? Eg twisted-iocpsupport ? I guess that if they managed to compile with 3.10, they shouldn't be. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/TDGG4VFRZO5CDKTUH4AXYDLVXOKNLZZE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Regressions caused the recent work on ceval.c and frame objects
On 19. 09. 21 21:34, dw-...@d-woods.co.uk wrote: Are you sure Cython is still broken? It looks like it was fixed back in May (https://github.com/cython/cython/issues/4153) and all the tests look to be passing on the 3.10-dev CI run for Cython. I think it only affected the profiling feature on Cython (which most people will have turned off) so probably won't cause widespread breakage. Which is not to say that you shouldn't fix the issue, but I don't think it's a disaster from Cython's point of view. Cython is fixed. However all the projects that ship Cython pre-generated C sources in sdists on PyPI that are affected and were not re-generated will not compile on Python 3.10. (Which might already be the case for different changes that affected Cython.) -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/YHPXTAOHGYDKYF4WY42L2KSTDLR65Q2T/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Heads up: `make` in Doc now creates a venv
On 06. 08. 21 12:21, Łukasz Langa wrote: On 4 Aug 2021, at 11:48, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 04. 08. 21 11:28, Petr Viktorin wrote: Hi, A recent change "make html" in the Doc directory create a venv if one wasn't there before. If you don't want to download sphinx and other dependencies from PyPI, you'll need to adjust your workflow. If you already have all the dependencies, the following command (in the CPython directory, not Doc) will build docs for you: sphinx-build Doc Doc/build/ The issue that added this is: https://bugs.python.org/issue44756 For what it's worth, I think that: - changes in the workflow should be discussed first - changes like this should not happen this late in the release cycle - a documented/supported way to build the docs with make without venv should exist (currently, running `mkdir venv` before `make ...` kinda works) Sorry for the disruption, I approved the change. I didn't realize skipping the `venv` altogether was a viable build option and I've been making releases with docs for over two years now. For me this change was mostly a matter of convenience. If the current state is undesirable for downstream distributors, I can revert `make build` being explicitly dependent on `make venv`. The current state is OK-ish but fragile. There is a way to skip the venv creation by creating an empty venv directory. However, it is undocumented and implementation-dependent (read: it is a hack). If we have a supported way to do this, I wouldn't might the default changed (although, honestly I don't think this should have been backported to 3.9 at this point). Regardless of that, for future build-related changes I'll make sure to loop more people in. Thanks. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/CTVVAVYOHQKNB4S36G36YP3SFXKBKIQE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Heads up: `make` in Doc now creates a venv
On 04. 08. 21 11:28, Petr Viktorin wrote: Hi, A recent change "make html" in the Doc directory create a venv if one wasn't there before. If you don't want to download sphinx and other dependencies from PyPI, you'll need to adjust your workflow. If you already have all the dependencies, the following command (in the CPython directory, not Doc) will build docs for you: sphinx-build Doc Doc/build/ The issue that added this is: https://bugs.python.org/issue44756 For what it's worth, I think that: - changes in the workflow should be discussed first - changes like this should not happen this late in the release cycle - a documented/supported way to build the docs with make without venv should exist (currently, running `mkdir venv` before `make ...` kinda works) -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZY5IFBLAKXHXRJNFLTSQYCBEOXMQ2XNE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: From the SC (was Re: Enum -- last call for comments on 3.10 changes)
On 13. 07. 21 5:21, Ethan Furman wrote: On 7/11/21 4:00 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 07. 07. 21 3:58, Ethan Furman wrote: >> I was unable to revert just the str and repr changes in the time available as many of them were >> integral to fixes and improvements made to Flag. As a result the enum in 3.10 will be the same >> as 3.9 (complete module reversion). > > I see the revert was merged with the "skip news" label. The changelog now mentions the original > change, but not the revert. > > Is it possible to mention this retroactively in the 3.10.0b4 changelog, or is that frozen now? > I think it's important to document this for maintainers of codebases that already adapted their > code to the new behavior with an if Python version >= 3.10 conditional. Thanks for bringing that up, a new news entry has been added. Thank you, Ethan. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/XNXJILZGHGSA3LAZSPP67GRNYDDUTCIZ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: From the SC (was Re: Enum -- last call for comments on 3.10 changes)
On 07. 07. 21 3:58, Ethan Furman wrote: On 6/29/21 9:50 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > the Steering Council strongly suggests that for Python 3.10, the changes in Enum’s > str and repr be reverted back to the Python 3.9 behavior, and that a PEP be written > for Python 3.11. I was unable to revert just the str and repr changes in the time available as many of them were integral to fixes and improvements made to Flag. As a result the enum in 3.10 will be the same as 3.9 (complete module reversion). Hello Ethan. I see the revert was merged with the "skip news" label. The changelog now mentions the original change, but not the revert. Is it possible to mention this retroactively in the 3.10.0b4 changelog, or is that frozen now? I think it's important to document this for maintainers of codebases that already adapted their code to the new behavior with an if Python version >= 3.10 conditional. Thanks for considering, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/3YE5FOVKK5ZEGPARDBE3JOGA3R66HCAD/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Towards removing asynchat, asyncore and smtpd from the stdlib
On 24. 06. 21 0:35, Barry Warsaw wrote: Miro, what tests (outside of Python itself) do you think may break, and do you have a way to check that? Any tests that import from asynchat, asyncore or smtpd (in the tests or in the tested code, even transitively trough other projects) if DeprecationWarnings are treated as errors by default -- many projects do this in tests (which is a very good way to get alerted of such deprecations when they happen) or even in setup.py (which I found rather weird). Some examples of such failures with different new DeprecationWarnings from the recent Python 3.10 pre-releases testing (mostly fixed now): - jinja2, subprocess-tee, sqlalchemy and more failed to build with Python 3.10: DeprecationWarning: There is no current event loop (treated as error) - colcon-ros, ruamel-yaml, flake8 and more failed to build with Python 3.10: DeprecationWarning: The distutils package deprecated and slated for removal in Python 3.12 (got it via setuptools usage, treated as error) - cherrypy failed to build with Python 3.10: pytest exited with no clear error message [1] Yes, we have a way to check all Fedora's Python packages by reusing our Python 3.10 pre-releases test-rebuild-everything mechanism, but it takes a few days to finish the builds and analyze the failures. Test failures caused by DeprecationWarnings are sometimes not obvious, e.g. not recognizable directly from the logs -- especially if they obscure some output that's checked for equality or line count (and all you get in the log is AssertionError: 20 != 21), or when they exit entire pytest session without any error message (arguably, that does not happen that often [1]). When such problems are found, it takes some time to report the problem to upstreams, fix the problem or workaround it (e.g. by filtering or ignoring the warning, which is not always trivial, especially when it propagates trough subprocess [2]). At this point of the release cycle, I'd rather recognize, triage and report regressions. [1] https://github.com/cherrypy/cherrypy/issues/1914#issuecomment-848780246 [2] https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/pull/8664 -Barry On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, at 17:15, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 06. 21 23:49, Irit Katriel via Python-Dev wrote: > > Barry and I are working on a patch to add deprecation warnings in 3.10 when one > of these are imported [6]. Let us know if you have any comments on this plan. With my Fedora Python maintainer hat on, I am not particularly happy about this. DeprecationWarnings have a tendency to break tests. I assumed Python 3.10.0b1 to be the last release that intentionally breaks things that worked with Python 3.9. It's not a strong opinion and if there is a consensus that adding new DeprecationWarnings is not considered "new feature" or "breaking change", I won't fight it, but it feels wrong. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org <mailto:python-dev@python.org> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org <mailto:python-dev-le...@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ <https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/> Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/PIXK73MXIO7X6P7MDFBSTKTRDR2BWBMH/ <https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/PIXK73MXIO7X6P7MDFBSTKTRDR2BWBMH/> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ <http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/> ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/SI4Z777QAUYQF3P7TOZBBUGQNGZUXBAT/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/FWWULFEN2HMDFTHIU2X7ORZNRCXHOGRR/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Towards removing asynchat, asyncore and smtpd from the stdlib
On 23. 06. 21 23:49, Irit Katriel via Python-Dev wrote: Barry and I are working on a patch to add deprecation warnings in 3.10 when one of these are imported [6]. Let us know if you have any comments on this plan. With my Fedora Python maintainer hat on, I am not particularly happy about this. DeprecationWarnings have a tendency to break tests. I assumed Python 3.10.0b1 to be the last release that intentionally breaks things that worked with Python 3.9. It's not a strong opinion and if there is a consensus that adding new DeprecationWarnings is not considered "new feature" or "breaking change", I won't fight it, but it feels wrong. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/PIXK73MXIO7X6P7MDFBSTKTRDR2BWBMH/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: When we remove 'U' mode of open()?
On 07. 04. 21 14:53, Inada Naoki wrote: 'U' mode was removed once and resurrected. https://bugs.python.org/issue39674 As far as I can see, it is postponed to Python 3.10. Am I right? Can we remove 'U' mode in Python 3.10? What is the benefit of doing it? Is the current compatibility layer to do nothing when "U" is passed difficult to maintain? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/IBZEWUCCIO27SYQDZ2MU2ZK6QZMP4FPJ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: NOTE: Python 3.9.3 contains an unintentional ABI incompatibility leading to crashes on 32-bit systems
On 04. 04. 21 16:34, Łukasz Langa wrote: On 4 Apr 2021, at 01:15, Miro Hrončok <mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>> wrote: However, I need to ask: Would this also happen if there was a rc version of 3.9.3? Good question. The RC would not help. Most importantly, 3.9.3 was itself an expedited release due to its security content. When I *did* use an RC phase for 3.9.2, which also contained security fixes, it met with considerable backlash and urges to release the update faster. And I ultimately did, two days after the RC was out. Informed by this experience, I would have likely skipped the RC for 3.9.3 anyway. More generally, RCs historically provided little value. Since Python 3.4 we've provided 55 bugfix releases. Five of those included an RC2, suggesting testing caught a regression. Let's look closer: - *none* of those happened for 3.8 and 3.9 releases; - two of those are a single issue in 3.7.1rc1 and 3.6.7rc1: https://bugs.python.org/issue34927 <https://bugs.python.org/issue34927>, indeed caught by a user downloading an rc1 installer from python.org <http://python.org>; - one was found by a third-party during "*preparation for Python 3.8*" and it just happened to be a regression also present in 3.7.4rc1 (https://bugs.python.org/issue24214 <https://bugs.python.org/issue24214>); - one was found by a third-party using *nightly* Python builds in CI (https://bugs.python.org/issue38216 <https://bugs.python.org/issue38216>) and it just happened to be a regression also present in 3.5.8rc1; - one was found by a core developer *running regression tests* on what coincidentally happened to be 3.6.2rc1 on Windows (https://bugs.python.org/issue30716 <https://bugs.python.org/issue30716>). The bug was in the tests themselves. So, we're looking at a single instance of a bug found an RC1 installer being out there. Python 3.0 through 3.3 had limited user penetration so looking at those isn't informative. But we can look at Python 2.7, and that one had a *single* rc2 in its 10 years of bugfix releases. That was 2.7.3rc2, in *2012*. It was in the Windows help file, discovered by a core developer looking through it. In the time of 3.8 and 3.9 so far, there was a single hotfix release which was due to a regression not caught by a published release candidate (https://bugs.python.org/issue41304 <https://bugs.python.org/issue41304>). Given the information above, I stand by my decision (confirmed with other release managers) to skip RCs for bugfix releases. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Łukasz! -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZGD4CWEDYANSYQG6QONF7KKASO4VN3BP/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: NOTE: Python 3.9.3 contains an unintentional ABI incompatibility leading to crashes on 32-bit systems
On 03. 04. 21 21:44, Łukasz Langa wrote: The memory layout of PyThreadState was unintentionally changed in the recent 3.9.3 bugfix release. This leads to crashes on 32-bit systems when importing binary extensions compiled for Python 3.9.0 - 3.9.2. This is a regression. We will be releasing a hotfix 3.9.4 around 24 hours from now to address this issue and restore ABI compatibility with C extensions built for Python 3.9.0 - 3.9.2. Thanks for the hotifx. However, I need to ask: Would this also happen if there was a rc version of 3.9.3? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/FNA54YSXUGMWM3ON4PSGFHHFYMAPFFD7/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Upcoming 3.7.10 and 3.6.13 Security Releases
On 20. 01. 21 13:43, Christian Heimes wrote: On 20/01/2021 13.06, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 10. 01. 21 21:15, Ned Deily wrote: We are planning to produce the next security-fix rollup releases for Python 3.7.x and 3.6.x on 2021-01-15. The most recent releases for these versions were on 2020-08-17. There has not been a lot of activity for either branch since then. Core developers: if you know of any additional security issues that should be addressed in these releases, please mark the relevant bpo issues as "release blocker" and, if possible, submit PRs for review prior to the end of 2021-01-14 AOE. Hi Ned. I am not a core developer, but can https://bugs.python.org/issue42938 please be included? I know it is past the deadline, but I have not seen the releases. Ned has postponed the upcoming security releases for the issue. Benjamin's fix has landed two days ago. The fixes will be included in 3.7.10 and 3.6.13. Thanks! -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/T544X74NME4BP2OFROK6UXQGRBPJVSL5/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Upcoming 3.7.10 and 3.6.13 Security Releases
On 10. 01. 21 21:15, Ned Deily wrote: We are planning to produce the next security-fix rollup releases for Python 3.7.x and 3.6.x on 2021-01-15. The most recent releases for these versions were on 2020-08-17. There has not been a lot of activity for either branch since then. Core developers: if you know of any additional security issues that should be addressed in these releases, please mark the relevant bpo issues as "release blocker" and, if possible, submit PRs for review prior to the end of 2021-01-14 AOE. Hi Ned. I am not a core developer, but can https://bugs.python.org/issue42938 please be included? I know it is past the deadline, but I have not seen the releases. Thanks, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/JUJAS2O2DY3TUPITDY7VQYEZXDVVMV7N/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Bumping minimum Sphinx version to 3.2 for cpython 3.10?
On 13. 01. 21 0:28, Victor Stinner wrote: I looked at Sphinx and Python versions of Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora: https://bugs.python.org/issue42843#msg384963 In my list, there is only Debian Buster (stable) which doesn't have Sphinx 3 yet. It uses Python 3.7 and so would not be affected by Python 3.8 changes. Hello Victor. In Fedora 32, we have Sphinx 2.2.2 and Python 3.8. Fedora 32 goes EOL in May 2021. Until then, it would eb great if we could keep compatibility with Sphinx 2 in Python 3.8 (but if we don't, no big deal, we just won't update the docs there). -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/R574346ZSKEJMUBMOGO27RFCHHFR64MB/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Distro packagers: PEP 615 and the tzdata dependency
On 11/28/20 9:30 PM, Paul Ganssle wrote: Considering the people involved and the nature of the list, I suspect that adding a new @python.org mailing list would be better than discourse. In my experience, it's very difficult to just follow a single topic on the discourse, and most people complain that the e-mail integration is not great. For something like, "Here's a head's up about something affecting distributors", I don't think Discourse offers much in the way of advantages. My guess is that distributors would be happiest with a relatively low-volume e-mail list that would point to discussions happening elsewhere (or that announces changes relevant to distributors). I totally agree with that. Following a mailing list is simple. Following a category on discuss.python.org not so much. I understand the argument that mailing lists are weird for new contributors etc., but I guess that distributors need to know how to handle mailing lists already anyway. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/U7RC7PZQXA44B34K7IHSGCLM3LMVZZY3/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Distro packagers: PEP 615 and the tzdata dependency
On 11/16/20 4:10 PM, Paul Ganssle wrote: Maybe it would make sense to create a community mailing list for packagers? That sounds like a good idea to me. I am following the Linux SIG mailing list. But it's mostly dead. https://mail.python.org/archives/list/linux-...@python.org/ -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/DF3UXOGYRAIOLTRGSNGNSZEKZOUFMXGA/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.9.0 is now available, and you can already test 3.10.0a1!
On 08. 10. 20 12:22, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote: Hi Miro, Thanks for your email. I will see if I can modify that file to include my key. Awesome, thanks. > I see the text at https://www.python.org/downloads/ <https://www.python.org/downloads/> about GPG has changed (since yesterday?) and it no longer contains the link. The text changes because I added my key bug I didn't delete any link IIRC. Do you know if the link to the file you mentioned used to be there? Right, the change from yesterday is addition of your key, not removal of the link. IIRC It used to be there, but if not, it must have been somewhere else, otherwise we would not have used it. I wonder where :/ searching... Oh, it seems to be deprecated :( https://github.com/python/pythondotorg/pull/1509 So maybe we indeed need to use your key directly after all. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/O3VZ2IOPA2NFUUAYFUQLNFEU7YNTHEL7/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.9.0 is now available, and you can already test 3.10.0a1!
On 05. 10. 20 22:22, Łukasz Langa wrote: In fact, our newest Release Manager, Pablo Galindo Salgado, prepared the first alpha release of what will become 3.10.0 a year from now. You can check it out here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3100a1/ <https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3100a1/> Hello Pablo. Could you please include your GPG key in https://www.python.org/static/files/pubkeys.txt ? I see the text at https://www.python.org/downloads/ about GPG has changed (since yesterday?) and it no longer contains the link. In Fedora, we verify the tarball during build time (offline) so we include the keys in the source package. It was really convenient to be able to use that key file directly instead of using the key of a specific release manager for each release. Thanks. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZWK6AR6ZCK7MSY3DGTMT6NHP4MTPK6GI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.8.6rc1 is now ready for testing
On 09. 09. 20 11:17, Ned Deily wrote: On Sep 9, 2020, at 04:30, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 08. 09. 20 23:38, Łukasz Langa wrote: Python 3.8.6rc1 is the release candidate of the sixth maintenance release of Python 3.8. Go get it here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-386rc1/ I've noticed the changelog link there leads to: https://docs.python.org/release/3.8.4rc1/whatsnew/changelog.html#changelog Where can this be updated? Thanks for reporting it. The link should now be fixed if you refresh the page. Thanks, Ned. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/H2B65BBEUYFQYFMMRDTM7MMLRROREBHH/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.8.6rc1 is now ready for testing
On 08. 09. 20 23:38, Łukasz Langa wrote: Python 3.8.6rc1 is the release candidate of the sixth maintenance release of Python 3.8. Go get it here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-386rc1/ I've noticed the changelog link there leads to: https://docs.python.org/release/3.8.4rc1/whatsnew/changelog.html#changelog Where can this be updated? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/SBIMWT6XGMZUZKPMV3WP5J7HAXRYQXVY/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: In case you're wondering about 3.5.10rc1
On 04. 07. 20 9:01, Larry Hastings wrote: It's held up on SSL. Ubuntu 20.04 changed some security parameter tunings, which breaks some uses of the SSL module, and approximately eight modules in the test suite. I assume this wasn't caught on the buildbots because they don't use Ubuntu--or at least not a build that fresh. SSL and the test suite are all completely happy on older Ubuntu releases. One could argue "it's fine, most people still using 3.5 are also using old OSes anyway". But I don't want to release 3.5.10 if important functionality is broken on a popular OS. So I'm waiting for help from the ssl module maintainer(s) who are very kindly looking into it. My plan is to release 3.5.10rc1 once it passes the test suite on Ubuntu 20.04... whenever that is. 3.5.10 final will be automatically rescheduled for two weeks from that date. Hey Larry. Does any of the following patches help? Fix test_alpn_protocols from test_ssl as openssl > 1.1.0f changed the behaviour of the ALPN hook. Fixed upstream: http://bugs.python.org/issue30714 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.5/blob/master/f/00270-fix-ssl-alpn-hook-test.patch Not every target system may provide a crypt() function in its stdlibc and may use an external or replacement library, like libxcrypt, for providing such functions. Fixed upstream: https://bugs.python.org/issue32635 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.5/blob/master/f/00290-cryptmodule-Include-crypt.h-for-declaration-of-crypt.patch -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GP57TGVLETOVQZRGVXWA4FYKHGDOI4NR/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Announcement: pip 20.1b1 beta release
On 27. 04. 20 20:56, Miro Hrončok wrote:
I've also observed that we now have the direct_url.json when we build pip, that
leaks the builddir path:
{"archive_info": {}, "url":
"file:///builddir/build/BUILD/pip-20.1b1/dist/pip-20.1b1-py2.py3-none-any.whl"}
I will read PEP 610, but may I safely assume that we can just rm it to have the
previous behavior?
Followup in https://discuss.python.org/t/4012
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/CK43ARE6O7QARF75OHYFGN3NTPZRD2M7/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Announcement: pip 20.1b1 beta release
On 27. 04. 20 17:17, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Basic CI smoke testing with venvs, virtualenvs, tox:
- CPython 3.5-3.8 (will add 3.9)
CPython 3.9.0a5 venv, virtualenv, tox OK as well.
I've also observed that we now have the direct_url.json when we build pip, that
leaks the builddir path:
{"archive_info": {}, "url":
"file:///builddir/build/BUILD/pip-20.1b1/dist/pip-20.1b1-py2.py3-none-any.whl"}
I will read PEP 610, but may I safely assume that we can just rm it to have the
previous behavior?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/O6VZGXIZQRLBSUJS5UQ2KSRUSTEOWE3S/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Announcement: pip 20.1b1 beta release
On 27. 04. 20 17:31, Paul Moore wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 16:21, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 04. 20 21:36, Sumana Harihareswara wrote: We would be grateful for all the testing that users could do to ensure that, when pip 20.1 is released, it's as solid as we can make it. We are doing some basic testing in Fedora. So far everyhting looks good. We've tested: Basic CI smoke testing with venvs, virtualenvs, tox: - CPython 3.5-3.8 (will add 3.9) - PyPy 3.6 Bundling in Fedora and running non-network tests during build on CPython 3.8.2 and 3.9.0a5. Building couple PEP 517/518 packages (pytest, pluggy, clickit, entyrpoints). Building and self-testing CPython 3.5-3.9 and PyPy 3.6 using a wheel of this pip, passed their ensurepip and venv tests during the build. I have now experienced some weird permissions: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pip-20.1b1.dist-info/INSTALLER 600 /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pip-20.1b1.dist-info/RECORD 600 /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pip-20.1b1.dist-info/direct_url.json 600 Will try to reproduce this outside of our build environment and will report an issue. I suspect this is https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/8139 (for which we have a fix prepared). Yes indeed. I have opened https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/8153 in the meantime (the linked issue didn't rally stand out when searching). Closed as duplicate. This would indeed generate a lot of problems in Fedora if not fixed in 20.1. Thanks! -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/3VJ2433NVC7QWUYPHTRFTMYLUICAXTZX/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Announcement: pip 20.1b1 beta release
On 23. 04. 20 21:36, Sumana Harihareswara wrote: We would be grateful for all the testing that users could do to ensure that, when pip 20.1 is released, it's as solid as we can make it. We are doing some basic testing in Fedora. So far everyhting looks good. We've tested: Basic CI smoke testing with venvs, virtualenvs, tox: - CPython 3.5-3.8 (will add 3.9) - PyPy 3.6 Bundling in Fedora and running non-network tests during build on CPython 3.8.2 and 3.9.0a5. Building couple PEP 517/518 packages (pytest, pluggy, clickit, entyrpoints). Building and self-testing CPython 3.5-3.9 and PyPy 3.6 using a wheel of this pip, passed their ensurepip and venv tests during the build. I have now experienced some weird permissions: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pip-20.1b1.dist-info/INSTALLER 600 /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pip-20.1b1.dist-info/RECORD 600 /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pip-20.1b1.dist-info/direct_url.json 600 Will try to reproduce this outside of our build environment and will report an issue. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/5EAUIYYIRKXEHTAG5GQ7EJHSXGZIW2F7/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Request to postpone some Python 3.9 incompatible changes to Python 3.10
On 24. 01. 20 22:54, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: 23.01.20 17:20, Victor Stinner пише: > * Removed collections aliases to ABC classes Adding loud warning was one of largest compatibility breaking changes in 3.8, because many active projects treat warnings in tests as errors. I had doubts about removing them. On one side, they were deprecated for a very long time. On other side, most time it was silent deprecation, and the removal will affect too much projects. I agree with deferring this removal. Some data points: This has so far affected ~65 from ~200 projects that we found fail to build in Fedora w/3.9. > * Remove "U" mode of open(): having to use io.open() just for Python 2 > makes the code uglier ~10 * Removed tostring/fromstring methods in array.array and base64 modules ~10 * Removed fractions.gcd() function (which is similar to math.gcd()) 0 * Removed old plistlib API: 2.7 doesn't have the new API 2 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/LGGI42UEQMJVNW2ZHEP473Z7ZQ5BDBPL/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Request to postpone some Python 3.9 incompatible changes to Python 3.10
On 24. 01. 20 16:22, Eric V. Smith wrote: On 1/24/2020 9:14 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 24. 01. 20 14:02, Eric V. Smith wrote: I think the concern is that with removing so many deprecated features, we're effectively telling libraries that if they want to support 3.9, they'll have stop supporting 2.7. And many library authors aren't willing to do that yet. Will they be willing to in another year? I can't say. The concern is not that they don't want to drop 2.7 support, but that is is a nontrivail task to actaually do and we cannot expect them to do it within the first couple weeks of 2020. While at the same time, we want them to support 3.9 since the early development versisons in order to eb able to detect regressions early in the dev cycle. Ah. So in 3.8, they kept code that had deprecation warnings so that they could be compatible with 2.7. They'd like to now drop that code and be 3.9-only compatible, but they don't have enough time to do that because they couldn't start that work as long as they were supporting 2.7. Do I have that right? Yes. If so, I'd be okay with postponing the removal of the deprecated code until 3.10. But I don't think we should postpone it if the driver is so that libraries can remain 2.7 compatible. That could go on forever. This postponement would be a one-time thing. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZKVPNSAX5NPTWVOD6Y6FLBBLZWFIXUVN/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Request to postpone some Python 3.9 incompatible changes to Python 3.10
On 24. 01. 20 14:02, Eric V. Smith wrote: On 1/24/2020 5:50 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote: On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 10:05, Victor Stinner <mailto:vstin...@python.org>> wrote: The proposal is to give one year to project maintainers to drop Python 2.7 support, since Python 2.7 end of support just happened a few weeks ago (2020-01-01). IMO creating this kind of "gray areas" in support and deprecation issues is bad. What this will create is just more sources for arguing/debates. Once deprecation or EoL schedule is set, it is best to align to it. Discussions about the schedules should happen when setting them, not when the deadline is coming. Also I am not sure it is really worth it. For example, importing ABCs directly from collections was deprecated 8 years ago, what would 1 extra year change? I think the concern is that with removing so many deprecated features, we're effectively telling libraries that if they want to support 3.9, they'll have stop supporting 2.7. And many library authors aren't willing to do that yet. Will they be willing to in another year? I can't say. The concern is not that they don't want to drop 2.7 support, but that is is a nontrivail task to actaually do and we cannot expect them to do it within the first couple weeks of 2020. While at the same time, we want them to support 3.9 since the early development versisons in order to eb able to detect regressions early in the dev cycle. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/RIEAHEAZZXHFRTUPZOC42OPMP6TSLZJE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Request to postpone some Python 3.9 incompatible changes to Python 3.10
On 24. 01. 20 5:59, Ethan Furman wrote: My understanding is that this postponement of removals is aimed at those who have just migrated to Python 3, not those who have already done it nor those who have 2/3 straddling code bases. No, the motivation to pospone the changes to 3.10 are projects that alrady support both 2 and 3 at the same time, with or without compatibility libraries like six. Before they had anough time to make the necessary actions to abandon Python 2.7, we ask them to support 3.9 from the same code base. Hence, they need to replace simple code: from collections import Sequence With either: try: from collections.abc import Sequence except ImprotError: # Python 2.7 doesn't have collections.abc from collections import Sequence Or: from compatlib.moves.collections_abc import Sequence In both cases, we move the burden of having a compatibility layer of some sort from one central location (Python 3.9 stdlib) to dozens (hundreds?) locations. For those who have been on 3 for a while, updating to use the newer APIs for 3.9 vs 3.10 shouldn't make a difference. For Python 3 only projects? No, no difference. Like-wise for those with 2/3 straddling code bases (we'll just need to add a few more things to our shims). And our point is that because it's too early in 2020 to drop Python 2 code, it is better to encourage projects to update the code as Python 3 only in a year than to let them add more shims now just to hopefully remove them in couple months. Anyone who hasn't supported/used Python 3 until now shouldn't have a problem with sticking with 3.8 until they are ready to make more adjustments, and those who have had to keep Python 2 around to run those applications/frameworks/whatevers will, I should think, be thrilled to use any Python 3 instead. :-) This does not affect projects who don't support Python 3 yet. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/TFCAMIAJPCCPGCKC7KIWPCWZIMEWYKI6/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.8.1rc1 is now available for testing
On 10. 12. 19 14:34, Łukasz Langa wrote: On 10 Dec 2019, at 13:01, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 10. 12. 19 10:22, Łukasz Langa wrote: Python 3.8.1rc1 is the release candidate of the first maintenance release of Python 3.8. The Python 3.8 series is the newest feature release of the Python language, and it contains many new features and optimizations. You can find Python 3.8.1rc1 here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-381rc1/ Hey Łukasz. Could you please also push the tag to gihub? Done. Thanks. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/RNVTWQ43F3EW5GQH4FBDI2V46UQD76FZ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.8.1rc1 is now available for testing
On 10. 12. 19 10:22, Łukasz Langa wrote: Python 3.8.1rc1 is the release candidate of the first maintenance release of Python 3.8. The Python 3.8 series is the newest feature release of the Python language, and it contains many new features and optimizations. You can find Python 3.8.1rc1 here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-381rc1/ Hey Łukasz. Could you please also push the tag to gihub? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/R7DH5D5OTT2B6OBQKUT267HKSODJEFEL/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.8.0rc1 is now available
On 01. 10. 19 23:29, Łukasz Langa wrote: On 1 Oct 2019, at 21:54, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 01. 10. 19 21:35, Łukasz Langa wrote: Python 3.8.0 is *almost* ready. After a rather tumultuous few days, we are very happy to announce the availability of the release candidate: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-380rc1/ This release, *3.8.0rc1*, is the final planned release preview. Assuming no critical problems are found prior to *2019-10-14*, the scheduled release date for *3.8.0*, no code changes are planned between this release candidate and the final release. I don't see the v3.8.0rc1 tag on GitHub. https://github.com/python/cpython/tree/v3.8.0rc1 gives 404 I was still working on that at the time, it's been fixed here: https://github.com/python/cpython/commits/3.8?author=ambv Thanks. Man, you're fast :-) Rollin, rollin, rollin... https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3/pull-request/135 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/UQVVBECGWPJENSU4PPTKGRHBK6UAIEGJ/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.8.0rc1 is now available
On 01. 10. 19 21:54, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 01. 10. 19 21:35, Łukasz Langa wrote: Python 3.8.0 is *almost* ready. After a rather tumultuous few days, we are very happy to announce the availability of the release candidate: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-380rc1/ This release, *3.8.0rc1*, is the final planned release preview. Assuming no critical problems are found prior to *2019-10-14*, the scheduled release date for *3.8.0*, no code changes are planned between this release candidate and the final release. I don't see the v3.8.0rc1 tag on GitHub. https://github.com/python/cpython/tree/v3.8.0rc1 gives 404 Now it is there, thanks. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/42ZNHX6UPPFBKB6XDBBLO7P6LTGTLPYQ/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.8.0rc1 is now available
On 01. 10. 19 21:35, Łukasz Langa wrote: Python 3.8.0 is *almost* ready. After a rather tumultuous few days, we are very happy to announce the availability of the release candidate: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-380rc1/ This release, *3.8.0rc1*, is the final planned release preview. Assuming no critical problems are found prior to *2019-10-14*, the scheduled release date for *3.8.0*, no code changes are planned between this release candidate and the final release. I don't see the v3.8.0rc1 tag on GitHub. https://github.com/python/cpython/tree/v3.8.0rc1 gives 404 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GA2AANKWSUDCLVWGLZ7FO5C6TZECPLTU/
[Python-Dev] Re: Python library maintainers: PEP 602 needs your feedback
On 10. 09. 19 16:23, Łukasz Langa wrote: Free-form discussion is happening here: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-602-annual-release-cycle-for-python/2296/ Does free-form mean it is meant for everybody? I'm not very familiar with Discourse, but ti seems only committer are allowed to discuss this topic. Was it intentional? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/VYXE7IW7N2UZ4R5TOFLNDMF5MMCHHXM5/
[Python-Dev] Re: [RELEASE] Python 3.7.4rc1 and 3.6.9rc1 are now available
On 19. 06. 19 7:19, Ned Deily wrote: Python 3.7.4rc1 and 3.6.9rc1 are now available. 3.7.4rc1 is the release preview of the next maintenance release of Python 3.7, the latest feature release of Python. 3.6.9rc1 is the release preview of the first security-fix release of Python 3.6. Assuming no critical problems are found prior to 2019-06-28, no code changes are planned between these release candidates and the final releases. These release candidates are intended to give you the opportunity to test the new security and bug fixes in 3.7.4 and security fixes in 3.6.9. We strongly encourage you to test your projects and report issues found to bugs.python.org as soon as possible. Please keep in mind that these are preview releases and, thus, their use is not recommended for production environments. You can find the release files, a link to their changelogs, and more information here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-374rc1/ https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-369rc1/ Hey Ned, I'm working on getting 3.7.4rc1 to Fedora rawhide (the "master branch" of Fedora). If nothing goes wrong with the build, it should land within a day. There are checks in Fedora that should uncover any suspicious test failures of our Python packages, if that happens, we'll report back hopefully before 2019-06-28 AOE. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/PR4EFLGVCBGTJSWXV3B3CMUPWRBRIUSF/
Re: [Python-Dev] Please merge : bpo-34848
On 03. 05. 19 14:24, Victor Stinner wrote: Does someone know how I can list pull requests which has been approved but not merged yet? Add review:approved to the search filed. https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+review%3Aapproved Or click on **Reviews** in the top bar and select what you like. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Update PEP 394: Distributions can choose what does python command mean
Hello. Based on discussions in [1], Petr Viktorin and me have drafted a new update [2] to the PEP 394 (The "python" Command on Unix-Like Systems). The update gives distributors the opportunity to decide where does the "python" command lead to, whether it is present etc. Please, see the PR [2] for the suggested changes. [1]: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-February/156272.html [2]: https://github.com/python/peps/pull/989 Thanks, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [RELEASE] Python 2.7.16
On 04. 03. 19 4:30, Benjamin Peterson wrote: Hello all, I'm pleased to announce the immediate availability of Python 2.7.16 for download at https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-2716/. The only change since the release candidate was a fix for the IDLE icon on macOS. See https://bugs.python.org/issue32129. Refer to the changelog for a full list of changes: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python/cpython/v2.7.16/Misc/NEWS.d/2.7.16rc1.rst https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-2716/ links changelog to https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python/cpython/v2.7.16/Misc/NEWS.d/2.7.16.rst but that only has 1 change (I suppose against rc1). Is there a better link, or should I read those two combined? https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python/cpython/v2.7.16/Misc/NEWS.d/2.7.16rc1.rst https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python/cpython/v2.7.16/Misc/NEWS.d/2.7.16.rst -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Proposed dates for Python 3.4.10 and Python 3.5.7
On 15. 02. 19 3:29, Larry Hastings wrote: If you have anything you think needs to go into the next 3.5, or the final 3.4, and it's /not/ listed above, please either file a GitHub PR, file a release-blocker bug on bpo, or email me directly. I've checked Fedora CVE bugs against python 3.4 and 3.5. Here is one missing I found: CVE-2018-20406 https://bugs.python.org/issue34656 memory exhaustion in Modules/_pickle.c:1393 Marked as resolved, but I don't see it fixed on 3.5 or 3.4. Should we get it fixed? openSUSE AFAK has backported the patch. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Get a running instance of the doc for a PR.
On 04. 11. 18 16:49, Stephane Wirtel wrote: On 11/04, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: 04.11.18 17:00, Julien Palard via Python-Dev пише: Considering feedback from Ned, what about building this as an independent service? We don't really need to interface with python.org at all, we just need some hardware, a domain, some code to interface with github API and... to start it's probably enough? It would be a usefull POC. This will just move risks to this service. Ned mentioned potential abuse. We will host unchecked content. Malicious user can create a PR which replaces Python documentation with malicious content. The content will be generated by the build/html directory from Travis. If Travis is green we upload the doc, if Travis is red, we do not publish it. If there is an abuse, we close/drop the PR, maybe Bedevere can receive this notification via the webhooks and notify the server to remove the doc. The Doc/ directory includes Python scripts and Makefile which are used for building documentation. Malicious user can use this for executing arbitrary code on our server. Currently, we use Travis. The malicious code will be execute in the container of Travis, not on the server. We only copy the static files and if we use nginx/apache, we don't execute the .py files. Just serve the .html,.css,.js files Yet you need to let Travis CI know how to upload the results (HTML files) somewhere. That usually involves some kind of credentials. You can secretly tell Travis the credentials, however somebody would be able to modify the Makefile (or anything else) to send the credentials to their webservice/e-mail/whatever. That is in fact not possible, for exactly this reason: Travis CI builds from PRs don't see the "secret" stuff. https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/environment-variables#defining-encrypted-variables-in-travisyml -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Starting to use gcc-8 on upstream Python project CI
On 20.8.2018 20:02, Jun Aruga wrote: Dear Python sig. Someone can you help to promote for the upstream Python project to use gcc-8 on the Travis CI test? Right now the project has 4 test cases [1] including defaut gcc version 4.8 cases on Travis CI. However technically it is possible to use gcc-N (4.8, 5, 6, 7, 8, and etc) on Travis CI. I think that using the latest version gcc-8 on the upstream project is quite beneficial for us. Because maybe we Fedora people are working to fix new version gcc's issues. When the python project start to use gcc-8, it is easy to share the situation publicly outside of Fedora, and of course they can help to check the issues. As I checked the Python project's .travis.yml, I had no idea about how to add gcc-8 case. ;( I can show you 2 cases to use the technique as an example. [2][3] [1] Python https://travis-ci.org/python/cpython https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.travis.yml [2] Ruby https://travis-ci.org/junaruga/ruby/builds/418242410 https://github.com/junaruga/ruby/blob/feature/ci-new-gcc/.travis.yml https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/1937 [3] A project I am working as a hobby. https://travis-ci.org/trinityrnaseq/trinityrnaseq https://github.com/trinityrnaseq/trinityrnaseq/blob/master/.travis.yml I'm taking this to python-dev@python.org which is more appropriate place to discuss this. I think Victor is involved in the CIs, is that right? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Failing tests [Was: Re: Python 3.7.0 is now available! (and so is 3.6.6)]
On 1.7.2018 23:48, Matěj Cepl wrote: On 2018-06-28, 00:58 GMT, Ned Deily wrote: On behalf of the Python development community and the Python 3.7 release team, we are pleased to announce the availability of Python 3.7.0. I am working on updating openSUSE packages to python 3.7, but I have hit quite large number of failing tests (the testsuite obviously passed with 3.6), see https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:mcepl:work/python3 (click on the red "failed" label to get logs). I fell into a bout of depression, only to discover that we are not alone in this problem ... Debian doesn't seem to do much better https://is.gd/HKBU4j. Surprisingly, Fedora seems to pass the testsuite https://is.gd/E0KA53; interesting, I will have to investigate which of their many patches did the trick. Note that we (=Fedora) unfortunately skip some tests. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3/blob/master/f/python3.spec#_1051 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3/blob/master/f/00160-disable-test_fs_holes-in-rpm-build.patch https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3/blob/master/f/00163-disable-parts-of-test_socket-in-rpm-build.patch -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Microsoft to acquire GitHub for $7.5 billion
On 5.6.2018 15:10, Matěj Cepl wrote: On 2018-06-04, 23:38 GMT, Steven D'Aprano wrote: No, but Guido is right: neither is anyone else. In that regard, Microsoft is probably *more* likely to keep pumping money into a failing business if it gives them a strategic advantage, compared to other investors with no long-term strategy other than "get aquired by Google/Microsoft/Oracle/Apple". Let me just to say here, that gitlab.com has export of repository together with all metadata. Just saying. GitHub has: https://developer.github.com/changes/2018-05-24-user-migration-api/ but I'm not sure what exactly is there. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Troubles to merge changes in the 2.7 branch: PR "out-of-date" branch
On 29.5.2018 22:01, Victor Stinner wrote: GitHub provides a [Update branch] button. It seems like the button does a rebase, no? AFAIK it merges the traget branch to the PR branch. No rebase. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] A fast startup patch (was: Python startup time)
On 5.5.2018 21:00, Nathaniel Smith wrote: I think in the vast majority of cases currently .pyc files are built on the same architecture where they're used? On Fedora (and by extension also on RHEL and CentOS) this is not rue. When the package is noarch (no extension module shipped, only pure Python) it is built and bytecompiled on a random architecture. Bytecompilation happens during build time. If bytecode gets arch specific, we'd need to make all our Python packages arch specific or switch to install-time bytecompilation. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Deprecate PEP 370 Per user site-packages directory?
On 13.1.2018 18:06, Christian Heimes wrote: Nowadays Python has venv in the standard library. The user-specific site-packages directory is no longer that useful. I would even say it's causing more trouble than it's worth. For example it's common for system script to use "#!/usr/bin/python3" shebang without -s or -I option. While I consider venvs easy and cool, this just moves the barrier for the users a little bit higher. We (Fedora Python SIG) are fighting users that run `sudo pip install` all the time (because the Interwebz are full of such instructions). The users might be willing to listen to "please, don't use pip with sudo, use --user instead". However, if you tell them "learn how to use a venv", they'll just stick with sudo. > I propose to deprecate the feature and remove it in Python 4.0. We would very much like to see --user the default rather than having it removed. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] What version is an extension module binary compatible with
Hi, as per [0], ABI of the C API is generally not stable and the binary compatibility may break between versions. It is hard from the text to know whether it talks about minor versions (such as 3.6 vs 3.5) or patch versions (such as 3.6.1 vs 3.6.0). In Fedora we currently only keep track about the minor version dependency. I.e. an RPM package with a Python module depends on Python 3.6, not specifically on Python 3.6.1. However, recently we found an issue with this approach [1]: an extension module built against Python 3.6.1 cannot be run on Python 3.6.0, because it uses a macro that, in 3.6.1, uses the new PySlice_AdjustIndices function. I'd like some clarification on what ABI compatibility we can expect. * Should the ABI be stable across patch releases (so calling PySlice_AdjustIndices from an existing macro would be a bug)? * Should the ABI be forward-compatible within a minor release (so modules built for 3.6.0 should be usable with 3.6.1, but not vice versa)? * Or should we expect the ABI to change even across patch releases? It would be nice to say this explicitly in the docs ([0] or another suitable place). [0] https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/stable.html [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435135 Thanks for clarification, On behalf of the Fedora Python SIG, Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
