> On Oct 30, 2020, at 4:51 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:14 PM Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
> FWIW, when the tracker issue landed with a PR, I became concerned that it
> would be applied without further discussion and without consulting users.
>
> An issue and a PR
A small update on this, since I've been playing with it.
I'm trying to implement a websocket proxy, since it's an example of a toy
project that needs to juggle two long-lived asyncio connections at once.
I'm using Starlette/Uvicorn for the server part (the part that accepts the
connection) and
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:30 PM Garrett D'Amore via Python-Dev <
python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> I’m not on this list. But I have offered to help - if there are tasks
> that need to be done to help this I can help put the weight of a commercial
> entity behind it whether that involves assigning
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:14 PM Raymond Hettinger <
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, when the tracker issue landed with a PR, I became concerned that it
> would be applied without further discussion and without consulting users.
An issue and a PR doesn't simply mean "it is
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:32 PM Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> I agree, remove Solaris support. Nobody willing to contribute seems
> interested.
>
*sniff* I spent a lot of professional time in front of SunOS and Solaris
screens. But yes, I agree. It seems time to give Solaris the boot.
Skip
On 31/10/20 7:22 am, Mark Shannon wrote:
On 30/10/2020 4:09 pm, Brandt Bucher wrote:
Anyone who reduces pattern matching
to "a fancy switch statement" probably isn't the right person to be
discussing its semantics and usefulness with.
Pattern matching is a fancy switch statement, if you
I’m not on this list. But I have offered to help - if there are tasks that
need to be done to help this I can help put the weight of a commercial entity
behind it whether that involves assigning our developers to work on this,
helping pay for external developers to do so, or assisting with
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 20:13, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> I vote against removal.
>
> We have no compelling need to disrupt an entire community and ecosystem even
> though it it is small.
[...]
> Given this kind of user response, I think it would irresponsible to drop
> support.
I vote for
Here are a couple comments on the Twitter thread that warrant your attention.
Apparently, this is being used by the European Space Agency on their space
craft.
-- https://twitter.com/nikolaivk/status/1322094167980466178
"To be clear I will put some money where my mouth is. If we need to invest
I vote against removal.
We have no compelling need to disrupt an entire community and ecosystem even
though it it is small.
To anyone chiming in to say, yes drop the support, ask whether you've consulted
any of the users — they should have a say in the matter. It is better for them
to be a
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 5:31 AM Mark Shannon wrote:
> > It's right here that you lose me. Anyone who reduces pattern matching to "a
> > fancy switch statement" probably isn't the right person to be discussing
> > its semantics and usefulness with. It seems that some people just can't
> >
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:03 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:37 AM Pablo Galindo Salgado
> wrote:
>
>> >Two volunteer core developers and at least one buildbot would help a
>> > lot to ensure that Python is working on Solaris for real, and reduce
>> > the number of open
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 18:30, Mark Shannon wrote:
>
> Hi Brandt,
>
> On 30/10/2020 4:09 pm, Brandt Bucher wrote:
> >> Can we discuss whether we want pattern matching in Python and the broader
> >> semantics first, before dealing with low level details?
> >
> > This is a huge step backward. These
> Am 30.10.2020 um 19:13 schrieb Gregory P. Smith :
>
>
>
> FWIW making a PR that adds platform specific test skips or expected failure
> decorators is a good way to start bringing up new buildbots. It serves as
> effective documentation of what does and doesn't work that lives directly
Hi Brandt,
On 30/10/2020 4:09 pm, Brandt Bucher wrote:
Can we discuss whether we want pattern matching in Python and the broader
semantics first, before dealing with low level details?
This is a huge step backward. These discussions have already taken place, over
the last 10 years.
So
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 8:26 AM Sebastian Wiedenroth
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've already commented on the issue, but want to make a few more points
> here as well.
>
> Removing Solaris support would not only impact Oracle Solaris but the open
> source illumos community as well.
> Both systems share
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2020-10-23 - 2020-10-30)
Python tracker at https://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open7626 (+18)
closed 46322 (+64)
total 53948 (+82)
Open issues
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:37 AM Pablo Galindo Salgado
wrote:
> >Two volunteer core developers and at least one buildbot would help a
> > lot to ensure that Python is working on Solaris for real, and reduce
> > the number of open Solaris issues. If it happens, I'm perfectly fine
> > with keeping
> On 30 Oct 2020, at 08:37, rajesh.narasim...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I have installed new python version 3.9, I wanted to move all the
> site-packages that I have used in 3.8 to 3.9 lib. Is it possible?
This is not a list for support on Python, but a list on the development of the
Python
> Can we discuss whether we want pattern matching in Python and the broader
> semantics first, before dealing with low level details?
This is a huge step backward. These discussions have already taken place, over
the last 10 years.
Here's just a sampling:
-
Hi,
I've already commented on the issue, but want to make a few more points here as
well.
Removing Solaris support would not only impact Oracle Solaris but the open
source illumos community as well.
Both systems share the "SunOS" uname for historical reasons. Removing support
would be a
I have installed new python version 3.9, I wanted to move all the site-packages
that I have used in 3.8 to 3.9 lib. Is it possible?
I also wanted to know why we need to have lib under every specific version, it
would be nice if we have common lib in which I can configure those based on the
Hi everyone,
PEP 634/5/6 presents a possible implementation of pattern matching for
Python.
Much of the discussion around PEP 634, and PEP 622 before it, seems to
imply that PEP 634 is synonymous with pattern matching; that if you
reject PEP 634 then you are rejecting pattern matching.
Le ven. 30 oct. 2020 à 11:02, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> > Ok, I've created https://bugs.python.org/issue42197 to track it.
>
> Please also have a look at PEP 558 and its draft reference
> implementation at https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/3640
I don't think that the PEP 558 and bpo-42197
Le ven. 30 oct. 2020 à 14:28, Ronald Oussoren a écrit :
> Whoa, not so fast. I’m not volunteering work on Solaris support ;-).
Oh sorry, I misunderstood your message :-(
> That said, I’m willing to review Solaris PRs (time permitting) but cannot
> test if changes actually work.
"Cannot test"
>Two volunteer core developers and at least one buildbot would help a
> lot to ensure that Python is working on Solaris for real, and reduce
> the number of open Solaris issues. If it happens, I'm perfectly fine
> with keeping Solaris support.
> I also hope that more people will contribute to
> On 30 Oct 2020, at 13:54, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Hi Ronald,
>
> Le ven. 30 oct. 2020 à 12:59, Ronald Oussoren a
> écrit :
>> I agree. That’s what I tried to write, its not just providing a buildbot but
>> also making sure that it keeps working and stays green.
>
> This is really
Hi Ronald,
Le ven. 30 oct. 2020 à 12:59, Ronald Oussoren a écrit :
> I agree. That’s what I tried to write, its not just providing a buildbot but
> also making sure that it keeps working and stays green.
This is really great!
Jesús Cea Avión is also a volunteer to maintain the Solaris (see
> On 30 Oct 2020, at 10:34, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote:
>
> Regarding having a Solaris buildbot: if someone provides a Solaris buildbot
> then the deal is that that someone or some other party must look after that
> buildbot and fix problems that appear in it in a timely manner. Broken
>
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:34:37 +
Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote:
> Regarding having a Solaris buildbot: if someone provides a Solaris buildbot
> then the deal is that that someone or some other party must look after that
> buildbot and fix problems that appear in it in a timely manner. Broken
>
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 20:52, Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 7:02 AM Nick Coghlan wrote:
> As a note, the current implementation does allow debuggers to mutate frame
> locals -- as long as they understand that they need to call `
> PyFrame_LocalsToFast ` when doing such a
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 7:02 AM Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 00:19, Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 9:45 AM Victor Stinner
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > If it's non controversial, is a PEP needed or just an issue to track
> it would be enough to remove those 2 lines?
>
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 00:19, Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 9:45 AM Victor Stinner wrote:
>>
>> > If it's non controversial, is a PEP needed or just an issue to track it
>> > would be enough to remove those 2 lines?
>>
>> Incompatible changes should be well documented in
Regarding having a Solaris buildbot: if someone provides a Solaris buildbot
then the deal is that that someone or some other party must look after that
buildbot and fix problems that appear in it in a timely manner. Broken
buildbots stop releases and I don't want to be in a situation in which I
> On 29 Oct 2020, at 22:43, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I propose to drop the Solaris support in Python to reduce the Python
> maintenance burden:
>
> https://bugs.python.org/issue42173
>
> I wrote a draft PR to show how much code could be removed (around 700
> lines in 65 files):
>
On 30/10/2020 08.58, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> It would make life of Illumos and OpenIndiana developers much harder,
> that can be seen hostile to open source community. It would make the
> code of CPython more rigid, virtually Linux-only with Windows and MacOS
> patches, and as a side effect can
29.10.20 23:43, Victor Stinner пише:
> * Current best effort support (no change): changes only happen if a
> core dev volunteers to review and merge a change written by a
> contributor.
It is my preference.
Several years ago I tested and fixed Python on OpenIndiana in virtual
machine, but I was
+1 to remove support for Solaris going forward. 4 years is plenty of time
to wait for someone to volunteer to maintain it, IMO. So my preference
would be for option 3 to remove it now, but I wouldn't be opposed to option
2 either w/ deprecating support and waiting a couple versions to remove it.
38 matches
Mail list logo
