Re: [Python-Dev] Semi-official read-only Github mirror of the CPython Mercurial repository

2014-07-12 Thread Eli Bendersky
Just a quick update on this. I've finally found time to set up a VPS at
DigitalOcean of myself, and I'm moving the cronjob for updating the Github
mirrors to it. This lets me ramp up the update frequency. For now I'll set
it to every 4 hours, but in the future I may make it even more frequent.
Hopefully this will not overrun my bandwidth allocation :)

The CPython mirror (https://github.com/python/cpython) has been pretty
popular so far, with over 70 forks.

Eli



On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Eli Bendersky  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> https://github.com/python/cpython is now live as a semi-official, *read
> only* Github mirror of the CPython Mercurial repository. Let me know if you
> have any problems/concerns.
>
> I still haven't decided how often to update it (considering either just N
> times a day, or maybe use a Hg hook for batching). Suggestions are welcome.
>
> The methodology I used to create it is via hg-fast-export. I also tried to
> pack and gc the git repo as much as possible before the initial Github push
> - it went down from almost ~2GB to ~200MB (so this is the size of a fresh
> clone right now).
>
> Eli
>
> P.S. thanks Jesse for the keys to https://github.com/python
>
>
>
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Updates to PEP 471, the os.scandir() proposal

2014-07-12 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 11 Jul 2014 12:46, "Ben Hoyt"  wrote:
>
> [replying to python-dev this time]
>
> >> The "onerror" approach can also deal with readdir failing, which the
> >>  PEP currently glosses over.
> >
> >
> > Do we want this, though?  I can see an error handler for individual
entries,
> > but if one of the *dir commands fails that would seem to be fairly
> > catastrophic.
>
> Very much agreed that this isn't necessary for just readdir/FindNext
> errors. We've never had this level of detail before -- if listdir()
> fails half way through (very unlikely) it just bombs with OSError and
> you get no entries at all.
>
> If you really really want this (again very unlikely), you can always
> use call next() directly and catch OSError around that call.

Agreed - I think the PEP should point this out explicitly, and show that
the approach it takes offers a lot of flexibility in error handling from
"just let it fail", to a single try/catch around the whole loop, to
try/catch just around the operations that might call lstat(), to try/catch
around the individual iteration steps.

os.walk remains the higher level API that most code should be using, and
that has to retain the current listdir based behaviour (any error = ignore
all entries in that directory) for backwards compatibility reasons.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> -Ben
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Memory BIO for _ssl

2014-07-12 Thread Geert Jansen
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Antoine Pitrou  wrote:

> Le 05/07/2014 14:04, Geert Jansen a écrit :
>
>> Since I need this for my Gruvi async framework, I want to volunteer to
>> write a patch. It should be useful as well to Py3K's asyncio and other
>> async frameworks. It would be good to get some feedback before I start
>> on this.
>
> Thanks for volunteering! This would be a very welcome addition.

I have a first patch and submitted it as issue #21965

http://bugs.python.org/issue21965

I've incorporated your feedback.

Regards,
Geert
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3121, 384 Refactoring Issues

2014-07-12 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 10 Jul 2014 19:59, "Alexander Belopolsky" 
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Mark Lawrence 
wrote:
>>
>> I'm just curious as to why there are 54 open issues after both of these
PEPs have been accepted and 384 is listed as finished.  Did we hit some
unforeseen technical problem which stalled development?
>
>
> I tried to bring some sanity to that effort by opening a "meta issue":
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue15787
>
> My enthusiasm, however, vanished after I reviewed the refactoring for the
datetime module:
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue15390
>
> My main objections are to following PEP 384 (Stable ABI) within stdlib
modules.  I see little benefit for the stdlib (which is shipped fresh with
every new version of Python) from following those guidelines.

The main downside of "do as we say, not as we do" in this case is that we
miss out on the feedback loop of what the stable ABI is like to *use*. For
example, the docs problem, where it's hard to tell whether an API is part
of the stable ABI or not, or the performance problem Stefan mentions.

Using the stable ABI for standard library extensions also serves to
decouple them further from the internal details of the CPython runtime,
making it more likely they will be able to run correctly on alternative
interpreters (since emulating or otherwise supporting the limited API is
easier than supporting the whole thing).

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3121, 384 Refactoring Issues

2014-07-12 Thread Alexander Belopolsky
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Nick Coghlan  wrote:

> The main downside of "do as we say, not as we do" in this case is that we
> miss out on the feedback loop of what the stable ABI is like to *use*.


I good start for improving the situation would be to  convert the extension
module templates that we ship with the Python source:

http://bugs.python.org/issue15848 (xxsubtype module)
http://bugs.python.org/issue15849 (xx module)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com