Nick Coghlan wrote:
I believe the list of incompatibilities and kludges and the subsequent
comments in the following file give the gist of the problems:
http://svn.python.org/projects/sandbox/trunk/decimal-c/_decimal.c
It sounds like some aspects of the API weren't thought
through very well
Neal Norwitz schrieb:
Christian,
Please fix the build on the various buildbots that are failing or
revert your changes for unicode literals. The build failures started
to occur at r61953. There were several more (~5) follow up checkins.
You can find all the failures here:
Greg Ewing schrieb:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
I believe the list of incompatibilities and kludges and the subsequent
comments in the following file give the gist of the problems:
http://svn.python.org/projects/sandbox/trunk/decimal-c/_decimal.c
It sounds like some aspects of the API weren't
On 2008-03-27 09:20, Christian Heimes wrote:
Neal Norwitz schrieb:
Christian,
Please fix the build on the various buildbots that are failing or
revert your changes for unicode literals. The build failures started
to occur at r61953. There were several more (~5) follow up checkins.
You
M.-A. Lemburg schrieb:
I'm not sure why that's necessary, but whenever you change something
in the compiler, please remember to update the PYC magic.
I'd also suggest that you run a non-debug build of Python to test
any checkins before committing them. The debug builds change various
ways
Can we have at least one build bot that compiles Python with UCS-4
unicode instead of UCS-2?
Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
The next releases of 2.6/3.0 are planned for April 2, just over a
week from now. There is much work that needs to be done. The
buildbots are in a pretty sad state and the gods are seeing too much
red.
http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/stable/
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Nick said, a drop-in replacement in C isn't feasible
But probably users of decimal won't really care if they have to slightly
adapt their code if they get the speed increase instead.
We had a SOC student working on
There
have been other tests that have also been flaky like test_asynchat,
test_smtplib, test_ssl, test_urllib2net, test_urllibnet,
test_xmlrpc_net and some of the tests that use networking.
Some of the *other* tests that use networking, I think you mean.
Sounds like networking tests in
Bill Janssen wrote:
There
have been other tests that have also been flaky like test_asynchat,
test_smtplib, test_ssl, test_urllib2net, test_urllibnet,
test_xmlrpc_net and some of the tests that use networking.
Some of the *other* tests that use networking, I think you mean.
Sounds
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 5:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The next releases of 2.6/3.0 are planned for April 2, just over a
week from now. There is much work that needs to be done. The
buildbots are in a pretty sad state and the gods are seeing too much
red.
11 matches
Mail list logo