On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:54:27PM -0500, Jim Gallacher wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
To confirm Jim's arithmetic anyway, I say -1 on 3.2.6 as it stands.
As to 3.2.7, I say +1, subject to removal of problematic test case
as already raised and with us at least confirming tests run OK for
Jim Gallacher writes:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
To confirm Jim's arithmetic anyway, I say -1 on 3.2.6 as it stands.
As to 3.2.7, I say +1, subject to removal of problematic test case
as already raised and with us at least confirming tests run OK for
version out of SVN prior to
+1 trunk rev 374588 + Apache/2.0.55 + Python/2.2.3 + Windows 2000 SP4
+1 trunk rev 374588 + Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.3.5 + Windows 2000 SP4
+1 trunk rev 374588 + Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.4.2 + Windows XP SP2
All three installers for win32 are available at
Jim Gallacher wrote:
+1 trunk rev 374588 Debian (sid), Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.3.5
+1 trunk rev 374588 Debian (sarge), Apache 2.0.54-worker, Python 2.3.5
+1 trunk rev 374588 Debian (sarge), Apache 2.0.54-prefork, Python 2.3.5
If I can get just one more test from FreeBSD 5 or 6, I'll
My official vote is eventually -1 for 3.2.6, see the previous
discussion for why I've changed my mind.
However I'm +1 on releasing 3.2.7 without a restrained testing period,
not a long one like for 3.2.6.
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/2/2, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know you said no discussion
+1
Release what's fixed already, and then keep going afterwards.
But can somebody address MODPYTHON-53 please. (updating modpython.org website).
--
Deron Meranda
I assume we will be doing a 3.2.7 release if Graham's fix for the
ConnectionHandler / MODPYTHON-102 problem works?
If that is the case I wonder if we should roll in the changes to support
apache 2.2. I scanned mod_python for deprecated or removed apr calls and
can find only one
OK, so shall we schedule the 3.2.x release for 2007, then ?
As for the Apache 2.2 version, what if we roll in your suggested
patch, Jim, then discover a bunch of problem related to it during the
beta tests ? Will we wait until they are all fixed to release the 3.2
version ? Apache 2.2 is quite
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 17:59 +0100, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Once again, it seems that no regression have been introduced in 3.2.6
vs 3.1.4, so we should release it ASAP and try to keep a steady
release rythm afterwards. When we'll get momentum we'll solve a bunch
of problem pretty fast, but it's
On 1/31/06, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apache 2.2. I scanned mod_python for deprecated or removed apr calls and
can find only one (apr_sockaddr_port_get), plus the missing
APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS macro.
The apr_sockaddr_port_get() call was introduced by me to support
IPv6 in
On 1/31/06, Deron Meranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/31/06, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apache 2.2. I scanned mod_python for deprecated or removed apr calls and
can find only one (apr_sockaddr_port_get), plus the missing
APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS macro.
The
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
I assume we will be doing a 3.2.7 release if Graham's fix for the
ConnectionHandler / MODPYTHON-102 problem works?
Unfortunately, the answer is yes... As much as we'd like to release it
sooner, I think it's important to not loose the perspective
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
OK, so shall we schedule the 3.2.x release for 2007, then ?
As for the Apache 2.2 version, what if we roll in your suggested
patch, Jim, then discover a bunch of problem related to it during the
beta tests ? Will we wait until they are all fixed to release the 3.2
version
Deron Meranda wrote:
On 1/31/06, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apache 2.2. I scanned mod_python for deprecated or removed apr calls and
can find only one (apr_sockaddr_port_get), plus the missing
APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS macro.
The apr_sockaddr_port_get() call was introduced by me to
I am having problems with posts to python-dev mailing list from home
occassionally disappearing in a black hole. Thus my post on this topic
before Jim brought it up in the first place vanished. What I has said was:
this code runs smoothly, i.e. no segfaults, all tests passed:
FreeBSD 4.9:
Good enough for me. Shall we vote? If so I am:
+1
Jim
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
I am having problems with posts to python-dev mailing list from home
occassionally disappearing in a black hole. Thus my post on this topic
before Jim brought it up in the first place vanished. What I has said was:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Barry Pederson wrote:
I think this is the general kind of thing we're looking for though,
with some mistaken pointer/memory operation.
Too bad we can't write *everything* in python. :(
You haven't been following PyPy then? :-)
David
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
buffer += bufsize;
On a second thought - yes, you're right :-)
And if he's not then there is a bug in filter_read since that is what it
does and it is very similar to _conn_read.
Jim
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On 29/01/2006, at 1:29 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
Volodya wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:28:24AM -0500, Gregory (Grisha)
Trubetskoy wrote:
OK, and I see Ron sent a Solaris 10 +1, which is good. I think we
need a FreeBSD +1 - perhaps not necessarily 6.0, but
Barry Pederson wrote ..
As I mentioned in another message, I did some experimenting with
disabling other unittests and found if you disable just
test_fileupload, all the remaining tests including
test_connectionhandler pass.
If you disable everything except test_fileupload and
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Dang, it's frustrating not being able to reproduce this bug in Linux.
I suppose it's maybe something to do with different malloc
implementations or such. I haven't seen any +1s for OpenBSD, which
would be interesting to see since they added some stuff in 3.8 to help
Grisha wrote ..
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
I don't know if this is the answer to the problem, but it looks like
a bug
anyway. In connobject.c starting at line 133:
/* time to grow destination string? */
if (len == 0 bytes_read == bufsize) {
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Grisha wrote ..
buffer = bufsize;
I suspect you mean't:
buffer += bufsize;
buffer = bufsize should be correct because you move the pointer to the end
of where the bufer was. buffer += bufsize would set it further
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
buffer += bufsize;
On a second thought - yes, you're right :-)
Grisha
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:28:24AM -0500, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
OK, and I see Ron sent a Solaris 10 +1, which is good. I think we need a
FreeBSD +1 - perhaps not necessarily 6.0, but something...
FreeBSD 4.9
In my case PythonConnectionHandler test fails.
Tested on:
Volodya wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:28:24AM -0500, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
OK, and I see Ron sent a Solaris 10 +1, which is good. I think we need a
FreeBSD +1 - perhaps not necessarily 6.0, but something...
FreeBSD 4.9
In my case PythonConnectionHandler test fails.
Maybe I forgot to send this one in:
+1
Solaris 10 Sparc
Apache-2.0.55 mpm-prefork
Python-2.4.2
cheers,
Ron
Ron Reisor [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RWR3)
University of Delaware Information Technologies/Network and Systems Services
Computing Center/192 South Chapel Street/Newark DE, 19716
pgp finger
Jim Gallacher wrote ..
It seems like any 3.2.6 testing that is going to be done, has been done.
How long do we wait before making a decision for an official release.
If we don't get cracking on 3.3 soon Graham's gonna fill another couple
of pages on JIRA and we'll never catch up. :)
You
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
It seems like any 3.2.6 testing that is going to be done, has been done.
I've been kinda swamped with unrelated things past two weeks, so I wasn't
paying much attention. Perhaps an e-mail summarizing the +1's so far and a
quick vote of the core
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
It seems like any 3.2.6 testing that is going to be done, has been done.
I've been kinda swamped with unrelated things past two weeks, so I
wasn't paying much attention. Perhaps an e-mail summarizing the +1's so
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
It seems like any 3.2.6 testing that is going to be done, has been done.
I've been kinda swamped with unrelated things past two weeks, so I
wasn't paying much attention. Perhaps an e-mail summarizing the +1's so
31 matches
Mail list logo