Re: [Twisted-Python] Need clarification on reviews for Python 3 fixes for Twisted

[Adi Roiban]

On 27 May 2016 at 13:13, Itamar Turner-Trauring  wrote:

>
>>
[snip]

I think they're fine to accept insofar as:
>
> 1. There is strong ongoing momentum for the port now, so these changes
> makes porting module-by-module easier and won't just bitrot.
>

How do you define a "strong ongoing momentum" ?


> 2. They're doing one particular incompatibility at a time, rather than
> "here's an assortment of random changes to a module that may or may not
> port that module fully, who knows."
>
>
Some code parts don't have python 2.7 coverage .
Is is still acceptable to touch that code ? :)

Regards,
Adi
-- 
Adi Roiban
___
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Re: [Twisted-Python] Need clarification on reviews for Python 3 fixes for Twisted

[Wolfgang Rohdewald]

Am Freitag, 27. Mai 2016, 08:13:10 schrieb Itamar Turner-Trauring:
> On 05/27/2016 04:19 AM, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> > However, Adi has mentioned that in this document: 
> > http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/wiki/Plan/Python3,
> > the strategy of submitting incremental Python3 fixes is not mentioned.
> > Before doing any further reviews, Adi would like clarification that
> > these types of reviews/patches are OK for submission and review.
> >
> > Are they OK?  Would it be possible extend the Plan/Python3 document to 
> > accept incremental Python3 fixes
> > as long as:
> >
> >  * adheres to Twisted coding standards
> >  * works on Python 2.7
> >  * passes existing tests
> >  * comes with new tests if functionality is changed that is not 
> > currently being tested
> >
> > My experience working with Python3 on other projects, is that incremental
> > fixes is easier to review and get working, rather than an all or 
> > nothing approach.
> > Some Python3 porting such as bytes/string/unicode or Python C API 
> > changes are very hard,
> > while print vs. print() are very easy.  Holding up the easy changes, 
> > until every hard change
> > is also done is quite hard, and slows things down.
> 
> I think they're fine to accept insofar as:
> 
> 1. There is strong ongoing momentum for the port now, so these changes 
> makes porting module-by-module easier and won't just bitrot.
> 2. They're doing one particular incompatibility at a time, rather than 
> "here's an assortment of random changes to a module that may or may not 
> port that module fully, who knows."
> 
> I don't think they are sufficient to port a module (someone needs to 
> read the code and think a bit, usually), but they will make it easier to 
> do so, so they definitely are worth continuing.
> 
> -Itamar

This would have been helpful when I tried to port PB to python3. 
Instead, that port is now bitrotting. I did try hard to deliver
simple changes (like print()) before tackling harder problems
but not much of all that went into the source code. Interest in
PB does not seem very high.

Anyway there still is the public git fork (I did mention it here
at that time) - if anybody would like to integrate that. Not me -
for the foreseeable future.

-- 
Wolfgang

___
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Re: [Twisted-Python] Need clarification on reviews for Python 3 fixes for Twisted

[Itamar Turner-Trauring]

On 05/27/2016 04:19 AM, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
However, Adi has mentioned that in this document: 
http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/wiki/Plan/Python3,

the strategy of submitting incremental Python3 fixes is not mentioned.
Before doing any further reviews, Adi would like clarification that
these types of reviews/patches are OK for submission and review.

Are they OK?  Would it be possible extend the Plan/Python3 document to 
accept incremental Python3 fixes

as long as:

 * adheres to Twisted coding standards
 * works on Python 2.7
 * passes existing tests
 * comes with new tests if functionality is changed that is not 
currently being tested


My experience working with Python3 on other projects, is that incremental
fixes is easier to review and get working, rather than an all or 
nothing approach.
Some Python3 porting such as bytes/string/unicode or Python C API 
changes are very hard,
while print vs. print() are very easy.  Holding up the easy changes, 
until every hard change

is also done is quite hard, and slows things down.


I think they're fine to accept insofar as:

1. There is strong ongoing momentum for the port now, so these changes 
makes porting module-by-module easier and won't just bitrot.
2. They're doing one particular incompatibility at a time, rather than 
"here's an assortment of random changes to a module that may or may not 
port that module fully, who knows."


I don't think they are sufficient to port a module (someone needs to 
read the code and think a bit, usually), but they will make it easier to 
do so, so they definitely are worth continuing.


-Itamar

___
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

[Twisted-Python] Need clarification on reviews for Python 3 fixes for Twisted

[Craig Rodrigues]

Hi,

I have submitted some Python 3 patches for Twisted.

1.  PATCHES REVIEWED AND COMMITTED TO TRUNK
=

Use new syntax for catching exceptions
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8344

Use new syntax for raising exceptions
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8345

Remove old syntax for octal literals
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8347

Fix parentheses in list comprehensions
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8351


2.  PATCHES WHICH STILL NEED TO BE REVIEWED, NOT YET COMMITTED TO TRUNK
===

Change print to print()
http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/5812

Change foo.has_key(bar) to "bar in foo"
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8359
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8360
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8361
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8362
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8363
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8364
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8365

Eliminate the use of long literals
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8366

Remove use of tuple parameter packing
https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/8346


Adi has reviewed and committed the patches in 1.
However, Adi has mentioned that in this document:
http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/wiki/Plan/Python3,
the strategy of submitting incremental Python3 fixes is not mentioned.
Before doing any further reviews, Adi would like clarification that
these types of reviews/patches are OK for submission and review.

Are they OK?  Would it be possible extend the Plan/Python3 document to
accept incremental Python3 fixes
as long as:

 * adheres to Twisted coding standards
 * works on Python 2.7
 * passes existing tests
 * comes with new tests if functionality is changed that is not currently
being tested

My experience working with Python3 on other projects, is that incremental
fixes is easier to review and get working, rather than an all or nothing
approach.
Some Python3 porting such as bytes/string/unicode or Python C API changes
are very hard,
while print vs. print() are very easy.  Holding up the easy changes, until
every hard change
is also done is quite hard, and slows things down.

--
Craig
___
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python