On 6 Jul, 05:29 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I'd also like to improve the labels of the build slaves. What
exactly
is x86 Red Hat 9 trunk testing? Trunk of what? What project?)
It seems like you would like to edit the master configuration file.
That can be arranged fairly easily.
How
On 6 Jul, 09:09 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's one thing to tell people that they need to be helping out (and
I'm sure you're right) but it's much more useful to get the message
out that
we really need people to do X, Y, and Z.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks to me like the main thing that Pybots needs is help with
maintenance. Getting someone to set up an individual buildbot is one thing,
but keeping it working is the important bit and it looks like people are not
doing that.
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Grig Gheorghiu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll send a message to the pybots mailing list asking people whose
buildbots are turned off if they're still interested in running them.
Negative or no answers will mean we can remove them from the farm.
OK, I posted a
On 01:02 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To bring my $0.02 to this discussion: the Pybots 'community buildbots'
turned out largely to be a failure.
Let's not say it's a failure. Let's instead say that it hasn't yet
become a success :-).
I still haven't given up, and I hope this thread will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 01:02 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To bring my $0.02 to this discussion: the Pybots 'community buildbots'
turned out largely to be a failure.
Let's not say it's a failure. Let's instead say that it hasn't yet
become a success :-).
+1
I still haven't
(I'd also like to improve the labels of the build slaves. What exactly
is x86 Red Hat 9 trunk testing? Trunk of what? What project?)
It seems like you would like to edit the master configuration file.
That can be arranged fairly easily.
Regards,
Martin
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, let's say that this were tremendously successful, and lots of
people start paying attention. I think pybots.org needs to be updated to
say exactly what a participant interested in python testing needs to do,
beyond here's how
It's not only a question of changing a static label in this case. A
given buildslave can run the tests for multiple projects, in which
case it becomes tricky to change the label on the fly accordingly.
I think you could set up different builders for a single slave in
that case (use a slave
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today on planetpython.org, Doug Hellman announced the June issue of Python
magazine. The cover story this month is about Pybots, the fantastic
automation system that has been put in place to make sure new releases of
Python software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do tend to ramble on, so here's an executive summary of my response:
I want python developers to pay attention to the community buildbots and
to treat breakages of existing projects as a serious issue.
Counter-proposal:
* Interested developers or users of the
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Ralf Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're saying py.test needs to be fixed? Fine with me, but then I
don't understand why you bothered bringing it up here instead of
fixing it (or
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, fair enough. Taking a step back, I was pushing this really hard because
to *me*, it seems like dealing with the influx of bug reports after the fact
is an unreasonable amount of additional work, whereas immediate reverts are
just
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Ralf Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're saying py.test needs to be fixed? Fine with me, but then I
don't understand why you bothered bringing it up here
Today on planetpython.org, Doug Hellman announced the June issue of
Python magazine. The cover story this month is about Pybots, the
fantastic automation system that has been put in place to make sure new
releases of Python software are as robust and stable as possible.
Last week, there was
Too verbose, Glyph. :-)
It needs to be decided case-by-case. The beta is called beta because,
well, it may break stuff and we may want to fix it. But there are also
likely many frameworks that use undefined behavior. I'm not
particularly impressed by statistics like all tests are red -- this
may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today on planetpython.org, Doug Hellman announced the June issue of
Python magazine. The cover story this month is about Pybots, the
fantastic automation system that has been put in place to make sure new
releases of Python software are as robust and stable as
On 03:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Too verbose, Glyph. :-)
Mea culpa. Glyph might be a less appropriate moniker than Altogether
too many glyphs.
It needs to be decided case-by-case.
If certain tests are to be ignored on a case-by-case basis, why not
record that decision by disabling
On 03:42 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
beta 1 has some trouble running *our* test suite - I'd be fairly
surprised if the community buildbots were in significantly better
shape.
That's another problem, yes :)
The community buildbots have been in a broken state for
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an explanation about *why* Django cannot even be imported than a
blanket complaint that this is a disgrace. So why is it?
File /home/ralf/pediapress/appserver/django/db/models/options.py,
line 198, in _many_to_many
Ralf Schmitt wrote:
TypeError: unhashable type: 'ManyToManyField'
TypeError: unhashable type: 'PrimaryKeyConstraint'
and already discussed:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-April/078421.html
Following the discussion to it's conclusions leads one to a tracker
issue [1] that
On 04:42 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
an explanation about *why* Django cannot even be imported than a
blanket complaint that this is a disgrace. So why is it?
and already discussed:
And just to make my position perfectly clear, I've unassigned it,
since I don't foresee to be able to give this issue the quality time
it clearly needs. Mind you, I agree it's a release blocker. But I
don't have time to personally investigate it. Sorry.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:54 AM, [EMAIL
That's also why the alpha is called an alpha. My informal understanding
is that a beta should have no (or at least very few) known issues
No, that's not the purpose. Instead, it is a promise that no further
features will be added, i.e. that the code is stable from a feature
point of view.
It
A big part of why I wrote this message is that I wanted a clear
understanding of the relationship between the definition of alpha,
beta and RC and the state of various buildbots. If that
relationship exists already, just linking to it from
http://python.org/download/releases/2.6/ would be
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04:42 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
an explanation about *why* Django cannot even be imported than a
blanket complaint that this is a disgrace. So why is
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ralf Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this patch even make things worse for me. now py.test also dies.
Please add details to the tracker.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ralf Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this patch even make things worse for me. now py.test also dies.
Please add details to the tracker.
Well, I think most probably the patch is
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Ralf Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ralf Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this patch even make things worse for me. now py.test also dies.
Please
I do tend to ramble on, so here's an executive summary of my response:
I want python developers to pay attention to the community buildbots and
to treat breakages of existing projects as a serious issue. However, I
don't think that maintaining those projects is the core team's job, so
all
On 05:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know. JP is already addressing the issues affecting Twisted
in
another thread (incompatible changes in the private-but-necessary-to-
get-any-testing-done API of the warnings module). But I really think
that whoever made the change which broke it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Another way to phrase this question is, whose responsibility is it to
make Python 2.5 programs run on Python 2.6? Or, what happens when the
core team finds out that a change they have made has broken some python
software 'in the wild'?
Here are a couple of ways
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On 03:42 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
beta 1 has some trouble running *our* test suite - I'd be fairly
surprised if the community buildbots were in significantly better
shape.
That's another problem, yes :)
The community buildbots have
To me (and I'm an outsider not a direct developer), it's Python developers
responsibility to handle the Python problems and the Python build bots. The
community build bots are the responsibility of their authors. If JP is
handling the Twisted one then great. It's got a gatekeeper. If no one is
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:46:48 +0200, Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
As for reverting changes that break, I'd support this
only for changes that break *all* of them. For example, I only use one
platform to develop on (and I guess it's the same for many others), having
the buildbots
I want python developers to pay attention to the community buildbots
I don't think that goal is realistic. Instead, somebody who has actual
interest in this matter should pay this attention, and then bring it up
on python-dev when something breaks.
Regards,
Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to what extent should Python actually be compatible between releases?
As I understand things from years of observation, the following are fair
game to changed in ways possibly backward-incompatible for specific
code: bugs, detailed float behavior (which may be
Georg Brandl wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Another way to phrase this question is, whose responsibility is it to
make Python 2.5 programs run on Python 2.6? Or, what happens when
the core team finds out that a change they have made has broken some
python software 'in the wild'?
Here
BuildBot has two ways to let you run your code on all builders before you
commit it to trunk. You can force a build on a branch or you can try a
build with a patch. I don't know if these options are enabled on Python's
buildmaster. If they are, then if you want, you can use them to make
On 07:44 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At no time will a policy the community buildbots must be green be
useful: the tests that run on these buildbots are not under our
control,
so if the tests test things we deem non-public we can't do anything
about it. (And we may have a hard time convincing
I don't ascribe this to malice -
it really *would* be much harder to fix it now, for us as well as for him.
I think I disagree. It's easier to fix it now than it was to fix it back
then. Fixing it back then would have meant to constantly observe the
buildbots, and keep them running, so it would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On 07:44 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At no time will a policy the community buildbots must be green be
useful: the tests that run on these buildbots are not under our
control,
so if the tests test things we deem non-public we can't do anything
about it. (And we may
Terry Reedy schrieb:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to what extent should Python actually be compatible between releases?
As I understand things from years of observation, the following are fair
game to changed in ways possibly backward-incompatible for specific
code: bugs, detailed float
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
If the community buildbots aren't largely green by the time beta 2
comes out, that's when I'll agree we have a problem - they should
definitely be green by the time first release candidate comes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jun 26, 2008, at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04:42 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Guido van Rossum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an explanation about *why* Django cannot even be imported than a
blanket
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know. JP is already addressing the issues affecting Twisted in
another thread (incompatible changes in the private-but-necessary-to-
get-any-testing-done API of the warnings module).
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
I don't know if this Barry guy has the appropriate permissions on
the bugtracker to increase priorities, so I've taken the liberty of
upgrading it as a release blocker for the _second_ beta ... ;-).
So, at least there's been one productive consequence of this
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07:44 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At no time will a policy the community buildbots must be green be
useful: the tests that run on these buildbots are not under our control,
so if the tests test things we deem non-public we can't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
I don't know if this Barry guy has the appropriate permissions
on the bugtracker to increase priorities, so I've taken the
liberty of upgrading it as a release blocker
I just added a deferred blocker priority -- that implements one half
of your wish. Mass issue updating must be done by someone who knows
Roundup better than me, I'm afraid.
I doubt true mass update will be necessary. If you remind me that I
should convert all deferred blocker issues to some
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're saying py.test needs to be fixed? Fine with me, but then I
don't understand why you bothered bringing it up here instead of
fixing it (or reporting to the py.test maintainers, I don't know if
you're one or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I just added a deferred blocker priority -- that implements one
half
of your wish. Mass issue updating must be done by someone who knows
Roundup better than me, I'm afraid.
I doubt true mass
On 09:17 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the relevant community buildbot turned red with that revision
of
trunk. Keep in mind I'm not talking about every piece of Python code
in the
universe; just the ones selected for the
On 26 Jun, 09:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07:44 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, sorry, that's life. We're not going to deal with breakage in 3rd
party code on a drop all other work basis.
For the record, automatic revert
54 matches
Mail list logo
