Floris Bruynooghe gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:18PM -0800, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> > I don't know what notation this versioning schema was trying for, especially
in regards to what the +'s mean:
> > N.N[.N]+[abc]N[.N]+[.postN+][.devN+]
> >
> The full regex (stripped from
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> 2009/12/9 Lennart Regebro :
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 18:45, Ian Bicking wrote:
>>> It's about time doctest got another run of development anyway. I can
>>> imagine a couple features that might help:
>>> * Already in there, but sometimes hard t
2009/12/9 Lennart Regebro :
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 18:45, Ian Bicking wrote:
>> It's about time doctest got another run of development anyway. I can
>> imagine a couple features that might help:
>> * Already in there, but sometimes hard to enable, is ellipsis. Can you
>> already do this?
>>
>>
> Yes, and a number of different workarounds. That's not really the
> issue. The issue is that what looks like a perfectly safe idiom
> (calling a function recursively) happens to create a reference cycle
> if that function is a closure. This is a non-obvious "gotcha" that I
> must now educate my
Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
Yes, and a number of different workarounds. That's not really the issue. The
issue is that what looks like a perfectly safe idiom (calling a function
recursively) happens to create a reference cycle if that function is a closure.
This is a non-obvious "gotcha" t
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>
>> > Evolving the tests to avoid depending on these sorts of implementation
>> > details is reasonable, IMO, and cuold even be considered a bugfix by
>> > the Zope community.
>>
>> Evo
twistedmatrix.com> writes:
>
> I don't know if this is related at all (and I guess we won't until
> Lennart can be more specific :), but here are some Twisted unit test
> failures which are probably due to unittest changes in 2.7:
You should do a specific diagnosis for each of these failures,
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> You remember which one?
Sorry, that was several months back.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." --Henry Miller
___
Python-Dev mailing list
P
On 09/12/2009 18:02, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 05:11 pm, lrege...@jarn.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 17:34, Michael Foord
wrote:
Can you be more specific?
Only with an insane amount of work. I'll hold that off for a while.
I don't know if this is related at all (and I guess w
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 18:52, R. David Murray wrote:
> In what way is the doctest ellipsis support not sufficient for this
> case?
For 2.7 it's probably going to work, as the changes there (from what I
can see amongst the massive failures I get in zope.testing) is that
there is a couple of lines
On 05:11 pm, lrege...@jarn.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 17:34, Michael Foord
wrote:
Can you be more specific?
Only with an insane amount of work. I'll hold that off for a while.
I don't know if this is related at all (and I guess we won't until
Lennart can be more specific :), but her
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 18:55, Michael Foord wrote:
> That may or may not be possible (it certainly sounds like a good change).
> You still haven't told us what change it is that breaks things
There are many changes, and it's already clear from the responses here
that people consider most of them
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 18:45, Ian Bicking wrote:
> It's about time doctest got another run of development anyway. I can
> imagine a couple features that might help:
> * Already in there, but sometimes hard to enable, is ellipsis. Can you
> already do this?
>
> >>> throw_an_exception()
>
On 09/12/2009 17:23, Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip...]
Evolving the tests to avoid depending on these sorts of implementation
details is reasonable, IMO, and cuold even be considered a bugfix by
the Zope community.
Evolving doctest.py so it can handle this by itself would be
considered a b
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:23:11 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> If the exception format has changed, I consider it a bug. Possibly a
> bug in doctest, as the only way to test for exceptions in that case is
> like this:
>
> >>> try:
> ... throw_an_exception()
> ... print "Did not t
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > Evolving the tests to avoid depending on these sorts of implementation
> > details is reasonable, IMO, and cuold even be considered a bugfix by
> > the Zope community.
>
> Evolving doctest.py so it can handle this by itself would be
> c
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 17:43, Fred Drake wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Benjamin Peterson
>> wrote:
>
>> Evolving the tests to avoid depending on these sorts of implementation
>> details is reasonable, IMO, and cuold even be
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>> On 09/12/2009 16:27, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>
>> I just ran the tests for zope.testing on Python 2.7, and the results are not
>> good. It seems that there are multiple minor differenc
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 17:43, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
>> Could you mention what specific changes are causing problems?
>
> I'd be glad to head Lennart confirm this, but I suspect this is
> primarily changes in exception messages; 2.7 in man
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 09/12/2009 16:27, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
> I just ran the tests for zope.testing on Python 2.7, and the results are not
> good. It seems that there are multiple minor difference in the output
> formatting of the testresults between 2.7 a
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 17:34, Michael Foord wrote:
> Can you be more specific?
Only with an insane amount of work. I'll hold that off for a while.
> Relying on specific formatting for test results *sounds* like you are relying
> on an implementation detail
Yeah, but that's doctests for you. An
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> Could you mention what specific changes are causing problems?
I'd be glad to head Lennart confirm this, but I suspect this is
primarily changes in exception messages; 2.7 in many places provides
better messages.
I found some of this wit
On 09/12/2009 16:27, Lennart Regebro wrote:
I just ran the tests for zope.testing on Python 2.7, and the results
are not good. It seems that there are multiple minor difference in the
output formatting of the testresults between 2.7 and previous 2.x
versions. The result is that all the tests th
2009/12/9 Lennart Regebro :
> Is these changes necessary? It's going to be hell to test any form of
> testrunner under both 2.6 and 2.7 if the formatting of test results have
> changed.
Could you mention what specific changes are causing problems?
--
Regards,
Benjamin
_
I just ran the tests for zope.testing on Python 2.7, and the results are not
good. It seems that there are multiple minor difference in the output
formatting of the testresults between 2.7 and previous 2.x versions. The
result is that all the tests that test testing (zope.testing includes a
testrun
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 09/12/2009 08:51, Joshi, Yateen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have an application that uses multiprocessing pools
> (multiprocessing.Pool(processes=…..)). There are multiple such pools and
> each pool has configurable number of processes. Once t
Kristján Valur Jónsson ccpgames.com> writes:
>
> a gc.collect() cycle visits a large amount of objects that it
> won‘t release causing cache thrashing.
>
> There is a reason we disabled ‚gc‘, and it is simply because we
> get lower cpu and smoother execution.
Could you try to enable the gc with
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:18PM -0800, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> Technical question:
>
> I don't know what notation this versioning schema was trying for, especially
> in regards to what the +'s mean:
> N.N[.N]+[abc]N[.N]+[.postN+][.devN+]
> Am I missing something here? You could maybe explain
> -Original Message-
> From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org
> [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org] On Behalf
> Of Greg Ewing
> Sent: 8. desember 2009 22:09
> To: python-dev@python.org
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] recursive closures - reference cyc
More English language fixes:
-In Python there are no real restriction yet on how a project should
+In Python there are no real restrictions yet on how a project should
-Furthermore, this will make OS packagers work easier when repackaging standards
-compliant distributions, as of now it can be di
On 09/12/2009 08:51, Joshi, Yateen wrote:
Hi,
I have an application that uses multiprocessing pools
(multiprocessing.Pool(processes=.)). There are multiple such pools
and each pool has configurable number of processes. Once the process
is spawned, it keeps on executing and does the neede
Hi,
I have an application that uses multiprocessing pools
(multiprocessing.Pool(processes=.)). There are multiple such pools
and each pool has configurable number of processes. Once the process is
spawned, it keeps on executing and does the needed processing. If there
is nothing to process
32 matches
Mail list logo
