[issue32608] Incompatibilities with the socketserver and multiprocessing packages

Michael Durso added the comment: I added more commits to the PR based on your comments. Although I cannot figure out why on the new Process objects create Threads that do not get cleaned up. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue32608] Incompatibilities with the socketserver and multiprocessing packages

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Posted a review now. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue32608] Incompatibilities with the socketserver and multiprocessing packages

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Hi Michael, sorry, I haven't had a chance yet. I'll try to make some time soon, I hope you don't mind the delay :-S -- ___ Python tracker

[issue32608] Incompatibilities with the socketserver and multiprocessing packages

Michael Durso added the comment: Hi Antoine, were you able to check out the pull request? I'd like to get the issues resolved so the code can be merged into the next version. Thanks! -- ___ Python tracker

[issue32608] Incompatibilities with the socketserver and multiprocessing packages

Michael Durso added the comment: Hi Antoine, no worries for the delay. I've been looking into why the AppVeyor check is failing. I believe it to be an issue with the test harness in that it changes the environment during the tests, but only in the Windows case. I

[issue32608] Incompatibilities with the socketserver and multiprocessing packages

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Hi Michael, sorry for the silence on this issue. I think the ProcessingMixIn feature is a good idea, I'll give the PR a review when I get the time. -- versions: -Python 2.7, Python 3.4, Python 3.5, Python 3.6, Python 3.7

[issue32608] Incompatibilities with the socketserver and multiprocessing packages

Change by Michael Durso : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +5104 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___

[issue32608] Incompatibilities with the socketserver and multiprocessing packages

New submission from Michael Durso : This is more of an issue with socketserver rather than multiprocessing. I could not find socketserver experts to add to the nosy list, but I've included the multiprocessing experts for completeness. Under specific conditions,