On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 22:09:03 -0600
Davin Potts wrote:
> I have done what I was asked to do: I added tests and docs in a new
> PR (GH-11816) as of Feb 10.
>
> Since that time, the API has matured thanks to thoughtful feedback
> from a number of active reviewers. At present, we appear to have
>
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:09 AM Davin Potts <
python+python_...@discontinuity.net> wrote:
> I have done what I was asked to do: I added tests and docs in a new
> PR (GH-11816) as of Feb 10.
>
> Since that time, the API has matured thanks to thoughtful feedback
> from a number of active
I have done what I was asked to do: I added tests and docs in a new
PR (GH-11816) as of Feb 10.
Since that time, the API has matured thanks to thoughtful feedback
from a number of active reviewers. At present, we appear to have
stabilized around an API and code that deserves to be exercised
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:51 PM Giampaolo Rodola'
wrote:
>
> Unless they are already there (I don't know) it would be good to have a
> full set of unit-tests for all the register()ed types and test them against
> SyncManager and SharedMemoryManager. That would give an idea on the real
>
Davin,
I am not familiar with the multiprocessing module, so take the following
with a big grain of salt. I took a look at the PR, then I got an idea of
how multiprocessing module is organized by reading the doc. Here's some
food for thought in terms of API reorganization.
SharedMemoryManager,
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 05:17, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> My gut reaction is that we shouldn't revert. However, looking at
> the changes, it seems 'multiprocessing.shared_memory' could be an
> external extension package that lives in PyPI. It doesn't require
> changes to other interpreter
On 02/05/2019 11:35 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
How about we stop using a highly public forum to pile up on Davin (being the
subject of a thread like this can be a soul crushing experience).
Thank you for the reminder.
Right now, he could really use some help and support from everyone on
I wrote:
> Could we somehow mark these APIs as experimental in 3.8?
It seems the change "e5ef45b8f519a9be9965590e1a0a587ff584c180" the
one we are discussing. It adds two new files:
Lib/multiprocessing/shared_memory.py
Modules/_multiprocessing/posixshmem.c
It doesn't introduce new C APIs.
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>
> The main problem I have with this PR is that it seems to introduce 8 brand
> new APIs, but since there is no doc, docstrings or tests it's unclear which
> ones are supposed to be used, how or whether they are supposed to supersede
On 2019-02-05, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> The main problem I have with this PR is that it seems to introduce
> 8 brand new APIs, but since there is no doc, docstrings or tests
> it's unclear which ones are supposed to be used, how or whether
> they are supposed to supersede or deprecate older
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:21 AM Davin Potts <
python+python_...@discontinuity.net> wrote:
> I am attempting to do the right thing and am following the advice of other
> core devs in what I have done thus far.
>
> Borrowing heavily from what I've added to issue35813 just now:
>
> This work is the
> On Feb 4, 2019, at 2:36 AM, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
> @Raymond, would you be willing to work with Davin on finishing this work in
> time for alpha2?
I would be happy to help, but this is beyond my technical ability. The people
who are qualified to work on this have already chimed in on the
The main problem here seems to be a shortage of communication. :/
Also, I agree on the exceptional nature of merging incomplete PRs.
-eric
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:37 AM Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
>
> > On 4 Feb 2019, at 01:49, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > I think this is now up to the 3.8
> On 4 Feb 2019, at 01:49, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> I think this is now up to the 3.8 release manager.
I responded on the tracker: https://bugs.python.org/issue35813#msg334817
I wrote:
> @Davin, in what time can you fill in the missing tests and documentation? If
> this is something you
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 21:12:38 -0600
Davin Potts wrote:
>
> I was encouraged by Lukasz, Yury, and others to check in this code early,
> not waiting for tests and docs, in order to both solicit more feedback and
> provide for broader testing.
For the record: submitting a PR without tests or docs is
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10:43 -0800
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >
> > On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
> >
> > Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 17:52:55 -0800
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
>
> Please work *with* Davin on this one.
You know, Raymond, I'm
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 21:25:27 -0600
Davin Potts wrote:
> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>
> Simply put: no. There have been a number of reactionary comments in the
> last 16 hours but no attempt to reach out to me directly
> On 4 Feb 2019, at 04:25, Davin Potts
> wrote:
>
> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>
> Simply put: no. There have been a number of reactionary comments in the
> last 16 hours but no attempt to reach out to me directly
> On 4 Feb 2019, at 03:10, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>>
>> Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed
On Feb 3, 2019, at 18:10, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> FWIW, with dataclasses we decided to get the PR committed early, long before
> most of the tests and all of the docs. The principle was that bigger changes
> needed to go in as early as possible in the release cycle so that we could
>
On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
Simply put: no. There have been a number of reactionary comments in the
last 16 hours but no attempt to reach out to me directly during that time.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:12 PM Raymond
I am attempting to do the right thing and am following the advice of other
core devs in what I have done thus far.
Borrowing heavily from what I've added to issue35813 just now:
This work is the result of ~1.5 years of development effort, much of it
accomplished at the last two core dev sprints.
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>
> Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed and make
> several suggestions.
I think the PR sat in a stable
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
Please work *with* Davin on this one.
It was only recently that you edited his name out of the list of maintainers
for
On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed and
make several suggestions.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:49 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think this is now up to the 3.8 release manager.
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:34 PM Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2019 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'd
I think this is now up to the 3.8 release manager.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:34 PM Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 2/3/2019 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
> >
> > The reason
On 2/3/2019 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
The reason is simple: [over 1000 lines not reviewed, no tests, no docs]
Aside from the technical reasons Antoine gave, which I agree with,
On Feb 3, 2019, at 13:03, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
>
> The reason is simple: the PR isn't complete, it lacks docs and tests.
> It also didn't pass any review (this was pointed by Ronald),
Hello,
I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
The reason is simple: the PR isn't complete, it lacks docs and tests.
It also didn't pass any review (this was pointed by Ronald), even
though it adds 1300 lines of code. No programmer
31 matches
Mail list logo
