Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> My understanding of the problem is that clearerr() needs to be called
>> before any FILE read operations on *some* platforms. The only platform I
>> saw mentioned was OS X. Towards that end, I have attached a much simpler
>> patch onto the tracker issue, which maybe somebo
> My understanding of the problem is that clearerr() needs to be called
> before any FILE read operations on *some* platforms. The only platform I
> saw mentioned was OS X. Towards that end, I have attached a much simpler
> patch onto the tracker issue, which maybe somebody can verify solves the
>
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> It seems r67740 shouldn't have been committed. Since this
> is a severe regression, I think I'll have to revert it, and
> release 2.5.4 with just that change.
My understanding of the problem is that clearerr() needs to be called
before any FILE read operations on *some* pl
On Dec 22, 2008, at 9:35 AM, s...@pobox.com wrote:
I don't think there is a test case which fails with it applied and
passes
with it removed. If not, I think it might be worthwhile to write
such a
test even if it's used temporarily just to test the change. I wrote a
trivial test case:
If
> Should we add this to the active branches (2.6, trunk, py3k, 3.0)?
Sure! Go ahead.
For 2.5.3, I'd rather not add an additional test case, but merely
revert the patch.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.pytho
Martin> It seems r67740 shouldn't have been committed. Since this is a
Martin> severe regression, I think I'll have to revert it, and release
Martin> 2.5.4 with just that change.
Martin> Unless I hear otherwise, I would release Python 2.5.4 (without a
Martin> release candidate
It seems r67740 shouldn't have been committed. Since this
is a severe regression, I think I'll have to revert it, and
release 2.5.4 with just that change.
Unless I hear otherwise, I would release Python 2.5.4
(without a release candidate) tomorrow.
Regards,
Martin
