Mailman 3 August 2013 - docs

[issue18759] Fix internal doc references for logging package
by Serhiy Storchaka Aug. 17, 2013

Aug. 17, 2013

New submission from Serhiy Storchaka: Here is a patch which fixes internal references in the documentation of the logging package. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation files: refs.logging.diff keywords: patch messages: 195401 nosy: docs@python, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, serhiy.storchaka, vinay.sajip priority: normal severity: normal stage: patch review status: open title: Fix internal doc references for logging package versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.3, Python 3.4 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file31324/refs.logging.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18759> _______________________________________

4 3

[issue18741] Fix typos/spelling mistakes in Lib/*/*/.py files
by Févry Thibault Aug. 17, 2013

Aug. 17, 2013

New submission from Févry Thibault: Using the same tool described in issue 18705, I fixed more typos. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation files: another_typo_patch.diff keywords: patch messages: 195216 nosy: docs@python, iwontbecreative priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Fix typos/spelling mistakes in Lib/*/*/.py files type: enhancement versions: Python 3.4 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file31294/another_typo_patch.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18741> _______________________________________

4 4

[issue18705] Fix arround 100 typos/spelling mistakes
by Févry Thibault Aug. 17, 2013

Aug. 17, 2013

New submission from Févry Thibault: In issue 18466 I had said I was planning to write a tool that checks python source code to see if they are spelling mistakes in comments/strings. As it was said there, the big issue was the fact that python has so many non-english words and that docstrings often had variable names in them, so I had to work arround the issue and add a personal word list. I only applied the tool to Lib/*.py yet, as it takes some time to check false-positives and I didn't want to end with patches too big to be reviewed. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation files: spelling_Lib.diff keywords: patch messages: 194850 nosy: docs@python, iwontbecreative priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Fix arround 100 typos/spelling mistakes type: enhancement versions: Python 3.4 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file31223/spelling_Lib.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18705> _______________________________________

6 13

[issue18744] pathological performance using tarfile
by Serhiy Storchaka Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I think in most cases peoples extracts archives in natural order and don't have a failure. But adding a warning looks reasonable. ---------- assignee: -> docs@python components: +Documentation -Library (Lib) nosy: +docs@python stage: -> needs patch versions: +Python 3.3, Python 3.4 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18744> _______________________________________

1 0

Re: [docs] Fix internal doc references for the email package (issue 18761)
by rdmurray＠bitdance.com Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/

1 0

Re: [docs] Fix internal doc references for the email package (issue 18761)
by ezio.melotti＠gmail.com Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.rst File Doc/library/email.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.rst#newcode… Doc/library/email.rst:300: * The method :meth:`setboundary` was renamed to :meth:`~email.message.Message.set_boundary`. Is there any way to either set a shortcut somewhere for email.message.Message or set is as current class/module? http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/

1 0

Fix internal doc references for the email package (issue 18761)
by rdmurray＠bitdance.com Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.errors.rst File Doc/library/email.errors.rst (left): http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.errors.rst#… Doc/library/email.errors.rst:50: :meth:`add_payload`, but the payload is already a scalar and the message's add_payload no longer exists. http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.headerregis… File Doc/library/email.headerregistry.rst (left): http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.headerregis… Doc/library/email.headerregistry.rst:59: is exactly the value passed in the :attr:`~EmailPolicy.header_factory` Hmm. I would have though that this would work, being in the same rst file. Oh well. http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.message.rst File Doc/library/email.message.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.message.rst… Doc/library/email.message.rst:316: :meth:`~object.__getitem__` except that optional *failobj* is returned if the This change is incorrect. The original construct correctly links to Message's __getitem__. http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.message.rst… Doc/library/email.message.rst:331: Extended header setting. This method is similar to :meth:`~object.__setitem__` This change is also incorrect. http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.policy.rst File Doc/library/email.policy.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.policy.rst#… Doc/library/email.policy.rst:318: :mod:`email.policy` module also defines an instance of this class, missing ~. http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.rst File Doc/library/email.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.rst#newcode… Doc/library/email.rst:174: :class:`~email.mime.text.MIMEText` constructor, the :meth:`Message.add_payload` method, the Don't we need ~email.message here as well? http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.rst#newcode… Doc/library/email.rst:205: false, :meth:`get_payload` was not a list object, but a single :class:`~email.message.Message` Don't we need ~email.message.Message here? http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/diff/8959/Doc/library/email.rst#newcode… Doc/library/email.rst:217: doesn't do a :meth:`set_payload` with a :class:`~email.message.Message` instance on a container ~email.message.Message.set_payload? http://bugs.python.org/review/18761/

1 0

Fix internal references for concurrent modules (issue 18757)
by ezio.melotti＠gmail.com Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

LGTM. http://bugs.python.org/review/18757/diff/8955/Doc/library/multiprocessing.r… File Doc/library/multiprocessing.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/18757/diff/8955/Doc/library/multiprocessing.r… Doc/library/multiprocessing.rst:1071: The :meth:`wait_for <threading.Condition.wait_for>` method was added. Isn't this equivalent to :meth:`~threading.Condition.wait_for`? or does this include "Condition." too? http://bugs.python.org/review/18757/diff/8955/Doc/library/multiprocessing.r… Doc/library/multiprocessing.rst:1478: The :meth:`wait_for <threading.Condition.wait_for>` method was added. Ditto. http://bugs.python.org/review/18757/diff/8955/Doc/library/select.rst File Doc/library/select.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/18757/diff/8955/Doc/library/select.rst#newcod… Doc/library/select.rst:336: :meth:`~~io.IOBase.fileno` method that returns an integer. Is the double ~ a typo or some syntax that I don't know? http://bugs.python.org/review/18757/

1 0

[issue16190] Misleading warning in random module docs
by Christian Heimes Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

New submission from Christian Heimes: The documentation [1] of the random module contains a misleading warning --- Warning: The generators of the random module should not be used for security purposes. Use ssl.RAND_bytes() if you require a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator. --- The warning should point users to os.urandom() and random.SystemRandom rather than ssl.RAND_bytes(). On Linux os.urandom() wraps /dev/urandom [2], on Windows it uses CryptGenRandom() [3]. Both are suitable for most cryptographic purposes except for long-lived keys (SSL, SSH, GPG certs etc.). ssl.RAND_bytes() should only be used for such long-lived data and not for salts, session ids and similar. I like to see the warning box in Python 2.7, too. It's still the default for docs.python.org. My inquiry is motivated by #16184. [1] http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/random.html [2] http://linux.die.net/man/4/urandom [3] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379942%28v=vs.85%… ---------- assignee: docs@python messages: 172589 nosy: christian.heimes, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Misleading warning in random module docs type: security versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.3, Python 3.4 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16190> _______________________________________

9 13

[issue18707] the readme should also talk about how to build doc.
by madan ram Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

New submission from madan ram: Since most of and also I faced problem of building Doc initially then later i found out how to build Doc. So i thought to include details on how to build Doc in README. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Build, Devguide, Documentation, Installation files: README.diff keywords: patch messages: 194866 nosy: docs@python, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, madan.ram priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: the readme should also talk about how to build doc. versions: Python 3.4 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file31227/README.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18707> _______________________________________

5 9