While I think there is some risk of exposure on this bug, I haven't
yet heard a compelling argument for delaying 2.6.4 final for it. I
think we should go ahead and do the release this Sunday as planned
with the code from 2.6.4rc2.
If you strongly disagree, please private email me. Otherwi
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 21:27 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> 2009/10/22 Robert Collins :
> > On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:16 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
> > ...
> >> That being said, I can't this bug as a release blocker: people can
> >> either upgrade to super-current Boost, or stick with 2.6.2 until they ca
On Oct 22, 2009, at 3:53 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:16 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
That being said, I can't this bug as a release blocker: people can
either upgrade to super-current Boost, or stick with 2.6.2 until
they can.
Thats the challenge Ubuntu faces:
http
On Oct 22, 2009, at 3:53 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:16 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
That being said, I can't this bug as a release blocker: people can
either upgrade to super-current Boost, or stick with 2.6.2 until
they can.
Thats the challenge Ubuntu faces:
https
2009/10/22 Robert Collins :
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:16 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
> ...
>> That being said, I can't this bug as a release blocker: people can
>> either upgrade to super-current Boost, or stick with 2.6.2 until they can.
>
> Thats the challenge Ubuntu faces:
> https://bugs.edge.la
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:16 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
> That being said, I can't this bug as a release blocker: people can
> either upgrade to super-current Boost, or stick with 2.6.2 until they can.
Thats the challenge Ubuntu faces:
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/boost1.38/+b
Tres Seaver schrieb:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>>> 2009/10/22 Barry Warsaw :
So does anybody else think bug 7183 should be a release blocker for
2.6.4
final, or is even a legitimate but that we need to fix?
>>> I think it can
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 at 13:16, Tres Seaver wrote:
The fix for 5890 has a funny "smell" to me: copying __doc__ into the
instance dict just feels wrong. How does that work with a pure Python
class using slots? E.g.:
It doesn't. There's even a test to make sure it doesn't :)
(It raises an attrib
On Oct 22, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
That being said, I can't this bug as a release blocker: people can
either upgrade to super-current Boost, or stick with 2.6.2 until
they can.
Agreed. I've knocked it down from release-blocker.
-Barryu
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digita
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>> 2009/10/22 Barry Warsaw :
>>> So does anybody else think bug 7183 should be a release blocker for
>>> 2.6.4
>>> final, or is even a legitimate but that we need to fix?
On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2009/10/22 Barry Warsaw :
So does anybody else think bug 7183 should be a release blocker
for 2.6.4
final, or is even a legitimate but that we need to fix?
I think it cannot hold up a
On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2009/10/22 Barry Warsaw :
So does anybody else think bug 7183 should be a release blocker for
2.6.4
final, or is even a legitimate but that we need to fix?
I think it cannot hold up a release with out a reproducible code
snippet.
It
2009/10/22 Barry Warsaw :
> So does anybody else think bug 7183 should be a release blocker for 2.6.4
> final, or is even a legitimate but that we need to fix?
I think it cannot hold up a release with out a reproducible code snippet.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
I'd like to get a second opinion on bug 7183:
http://bugs.python.org/issue7183
The Boost folks have reported this as a regression in 2.6.3, making it
a candidate for Python 2.6.4. IIUC, the latest version of Boost fixes
the problem in their code, but if it really is a regression it could
14 matches
Mail list logo
