On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
>
> This update included ~300 changesets from upstream and required an
> additional ~30 to update our instances and our fork of Roundup. A number
> of features that we added to our fork over the years have been ported
> upstream and they have
Hi,
yesterday I updated the version of Roundup used to run our bugs.python.org
instance and 4 other instances (the meta, jython, setuptools, and roundup
trackers). If everything went right you shouldn't have noticed anything
different :)
This update included ~300 changesets from upstream and
On 28 September 2017 at 06:23, George King wrote:
> Victor, thank you for starting this conversation. Nick, I just looked at your
> patch and I think it is a better solution than mine, because it does not
> involve adding to or changing the sys API. I will close my pull
Victor, thank you for starting this conversation. Nick, I just looked at your
patch and I think it is a better solution than mine, because it does not
involve adding to or changing the sys API. I will close my pull request.
The reason for my interest in this area is that I’m experimenting with
On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:24, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Can we add redirects to the old list locations?
I’m not sure we need it for security-announce given how new that list is and
that we only have one message to it. I’ve forwarded this request to
postmaster@ though.
On 27 September 2017 at 22:56, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In bpo-29400, it was proposed to add the ability to trace not only
> function calls but also instructions at the bytecode level. I like the
> idea, but I don't see how to extend sys.settrace() to add a new
>
Can we add redirects to the old list locations?
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Roberto Martínez <
robertomartin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't see the lists either. Same message "No such list
> security-announce".
>
> Cheers.
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 18:05 Jesus Cea wrote:
>
>>
I can't see the lists either. Same message "No such list security-announce".
Cheers.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 18:05 Jesus Cea wrote:
> On 21/09/17 17:30, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/security-announce
>
> "No such list security-announce".
>
> >
On Sep 27, 2017, at 11:56, Jesus Cea wrote:
>
> On 21/09/17 17:30, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/security-announce
>
> "No such list security-announce".
>
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/security-sig
>
> "No such list security-sig".
On 21/09/17 17:30, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/security-announce
"No such list security-announce".
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/security-sig
"No such list security-sig".
--
Jesús Cea Avión _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> I afraid that this change breaks an assumption in frame_setlineno() about
> the state of the stack. This can corrupt the stack if you jump from the
> instruction which is a part of Python operation. For example
27.09.17 15:56, Victor Stinner пише:
In bpo-29400, it was proposed to add the ability to trace not only
function calls but also instructions at the bytecode level. I like the
idea, but I don't see how to extend sys.settrace() to add a new
"trace_instructions: bool" optional (keyword-only?)
On 09/27/2017 02:56 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi,
In bpo-29400, it was proposed to add the ability to trace not only
function calls but also instructions at the bytecode level. I like the
idea, but I don't see how to extend sys.settrace() to add a new
"trace_instructions: bool" optional
Hi,
In bpo-29400, it was proposed to add the ability to trace not only
function calls but also instructions at the bytecode level. I like the
idea, but I don't see how to extend sys.settrace() to add a new
"trace_instructions: bool" optional (keyword-only?) parameter without
breaking the backward
14 matches
Mail list logo