Vitja's CyFunction branch
Hi, I wonder what we should do with Vitja's CyFunction branch. He mentioned issues with it in the past (I remember that there was one specific changeset that he considered questionable), and it seems that we found several ways to extend the function support beyond that, which may have an impact on the current way it's implemented. Is this something that makes sense to be included in 0.15, or should it wait to get stable and further extended before being merged? It appears to me that there are reasons for one and the other. However, given that we plan to drop support for (at least) Python 2.3 after this release, I feel that we should try to get out a version that doesn't require much fixing and maintenance. Changing the implementation of functions at this point seems like a rather deep cut. If we agree that it's in a state that we feel comfortable with, I wouldn't object to merging it. Otherwise, I'd suggest to wait until after the release. Comments? Stefan
2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de>:
Hi,
I wonder what we should do with Vitja's CyFunction branch. He mentioned issues with it in the past (I remember that there was one specific changeset that he considered questionable), and it seems that we found several ways to extend the function support beyond that, which may have an impact on the current way it's implemented.
Is this something that makes sense to be included in 0.15, or should it wait to get stable and further extended before being merged?
It appears to me that there are reasons for one and the other. However, given that we plan to drop support for (at least) Python 2.3 after this release, I feel that we should try to get out a version that doesn't require much fixing and maintenance. Changing the implementation of functions at this point seems like a rather deep cut. If we agree that it's in a state that we feel comfortable with, I wouldn't object to merging it. Otherwise, I'd suggest to wait until after the release.
Comments?
That's not such a big change, CyFunction replcaces old PyCFunction_binding type and shouldn't break anything. -- vitja.
On 30 July 2011 11:55, Vitja Makarov <vitja.makarov@gmail.com> wrote:
2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de>:
Hi,
I wonder what we should do with Vitja's CyFunction branch. He mentioned issues with it in the past (I remember that there was one specific changeset that he considered questionable), and it seems that we found several ways to extend the function support beyond that, which may have an impact on the current way it's implemented.
Is this something that makes sense to be included in 0.15, or should it wait to get stable and further extended before being merged?
It appears to me that there are reasons for one and the other. However, given that we plan to drop support for (at least) Python 2.3 after this release, I feel that we should try to get out a version that doesn't require much fixing and maintenance. Changing the implementation of functions at this point seems like a rather deep cut. If we agree that it's in a state that we feel comfortable with, I wouldn't object to merging it. Otherwise, I'd suggest to wait until after the release.
Comments?
That's not such a big change, CyFunction replcaces old PyCFunction_binding type and shouldn't break anything.
-- vitja. _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
+1 on merging, I think it's been ready for weeks. I see no problem if it passes the testsuite, and I need it for fused types (although admittedly I'm taking a vacation after this weekend).
My opinion is that we create a (short-lived) branch for the release, and continue development (ignoring the release) on master. If CyFunction solves no problems that blocks a release, I am -1 on merging it into the release branch. But we shouldn't keep things in pull requests just because we're waiting for a release, it is better to use a dedicated release branch. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. mark florisson <markflorisson88@gmail.com> wrote: On 30 July 2011 11:55, Vitja Makarov <vitja.makarov@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de>: >> Hi, >> >> I wonder what we should do with Vitja's CyFunction branch. He mentioned >> issues with it in the past (I remember that there was one specific changeset >> that he considered questionable), and it seems that we found several ways to >> extend the function support beyond that, which may have an impact on the >> current way it's implemented. >> >> Is this something that makes sense to be included in 0.15, or should it wait >> to get stable and further extended before being merged? >> >> It appears to me that there are reasons for one and the other. However, >> given that we plan to drop support for (at least) Python 2.3 after this >> release, I feel that we should try to get out a version that doesn't require >> much fixing and maintenance. Changing the implementation of functions at >> this point seems like a rather deep cut. If we agree that it's in a state >> that we feel comfortable with, I wouldn't object to merging it. Otherwise, >> I'd suggest to wait until after the release. >> >> Comments? >> > > That's not such a big change, CyFunction replcaces old > PyCFunction_binding type and shouldn't break anything. > > > -- > vitja. >_____________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list > cython-devel@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel > +1 on merging, I think it's been ready for weeks. I see no problem if it passes the testsuite, and I need it for fused types (although admittedly I'm taking a vacation after this weekend)._____________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <d.s.seljebotn@astro.uio.no> wrote:
My opinion is that we create a (short-lived) branch for the release, and continue development (ignoring the release) on master.
If CyFunction solves no problems that blocks a release, I am -1 on merging it into the release branch.
My thoughts exactly. I was initially wanting to get it in, but it was to substantial of a change to drop in at the last moment.
But we shouldn't keep things in pull requests just because we're waiting for a release, it is better to use a dedicated release branch.
+1. The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into it (I think accidentally getting rid of mercurial heads). To be clear, don't let a pending release prevent us from merging stuff into main--I'll be careful when I make the next RC to make sure it's all conservative. - Robert
Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into it
That was just an accident on my side when I wasn't aware of the new branch you had created. Won't happen again. Just open a new branch when you deem it appropriate. Stefan
2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de>:
Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into it
That was just an accident on my side when I wasn't aware of the new branch you had created. Won't happen again. Just open a new branch when you deem it appropriate.
0.15 is out. Is it time to merge CyFunction? ps: I'm afraid of merge button -- vitja.
Vitja Makarov, 13.08.2011 06:41:
2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel:
Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into it
That was just an accident on my side when I wasn't aware of the new branch you had created. Won't happen again. Just open a new branch when you deem it appropriate.
0.15 is out. Is it time to merge CyFunction?
ps: I'm afraid of merge button
There were no objections to merging it, so I hit the button. Stefan
2011/8/13 Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de>:
Vitja Makarov, 13.08.2011 06:41:
2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel:
Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into it
That was just an accident on my side when I wasn't aware of the new branch you had created. Won't happen again. Just open a new branch when you deem it appropriate.
0.15 is out. Is it time to merge CyFunction?
ps: I'm afraid of merge button
There were no objections to merging it, so I hit the button.
Thanks! To be clear: we see increase in pyregr tests beacause of special hack in runtests.py that enables binding for pyregr. And of course it's disabled by default. -- vitja.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Vitja Makarov <vitja.makarov@gmail.com> wrote:
2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de>:
Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into it
That was just an accident on my side when I wasn't aware of the new branch you had created. Won't happen again. Just open a new branch when you deem it appropriate.
0.15 is out. Is it time to merge CyFunction?
+1. (I see you already did.) - Robert
participants (5)
-
Dag Sverre Seljebotn -
mark florisson -
Robert Bradshaw -
Stefan Behnel -
Vitja Makarov