Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2

2005-08-26 Thread Nicolas Lehuen
Hi Jim, The fix for MODPYTHON-72 should be easy, unfortunately I'm quite busy right now, since my first daughter was born three days ago... I'll do my best to have a look at it, but if someone feels like doing it, I'll understand. Regards, Nicolas2005/8/26, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I

Re: flex [was mod_python 3.2.0-BETA available for testing]

2005-08-26 Thread Jim Gallacher
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: OK, here is the flex scoop - as the the docs point out, anything before 2.5.31 is not reentrant and I think even uses a slightly different interface so older flex won't even process the psp_parser.l file correctly. Looking at Fedora Core 4, it still has

Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2

2005-08-26 Thread Jim Gallacher
I think we should aim for the second beta release in the next couple of days. I have a few questions and a list of outstanding issues. Name of tarball: mod_python-3.2.1b.tgz? Also, I assume a new branch called tags/release-3.2.1-BETA will be created in subversion, correct? Outstanding

Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2

2005-08-26 Thread Jim Gallacher
Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Hi Jim, The fix for MODPYTHON-72 http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-72 should be easy, unfortunately I'm quite busy right now, since my first daughter was born three days ago... Congratulations Nicolas! I'll do my best to have a look at it, but if

Re: Publisher bug in 3.2 BETA.

2005-08-26 Thread Jim Gallacher
I was hoping there would be a simple fix for this but a quick glance at the code makes me think that will not be the case. Also, I don't think this is a new bug as 3.1.4 does not generate a 404 NOT FOUND response either: Mod_python error: PythonHandler mod_python.publisher Traceback (most

Re: flex [was mod_python 3.2.0-BETA available for testing]

2005-08-26 Thread Nick
Jim, I don't think it's too verbose, but maybe you could delay it to the end of the configure script so you don't have to either interrupt with control-C or scroll back to see what went wrong. Here's another idea: Fail the flex test fairly silently (e.g. just no), but fall back to a script

Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2

2005-08-26 Thread Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote: I think we should aim for the second beta release in the next couple of days. I have a few questions and a list of outstanding issues. Name of tarball: mod_python-3.2.1b.tgz? yep, 3.2.1b Also, I assume a new branch called tags/release-3.2.1-BETA

Re: flex [was mod_python 3.2.0-BETA available for testing]

2005-08-26 Thread Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Nick wrote: Here's another idea: Fail the flex test fairly silently (e.g. just no), but fall back to a script that generates a nice, verbose error message explaining the situation. That way, when the user tries to call make after modifying the .l file, the fake flex

[jira] Commented: (MODPYTHON-72) mod_python.publisher no longer pays attention to result of req.get_addhandler_exts()

2005-08-26 Thread Jim Gallacher (JIRA)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-72?page=comments#action_12320155 ] Jim Gallacher commented on MODPYTHON-72: I can't reproduce this problem, or maybe I don't understand it properly. In the example, is # page.py a typo and should