I'm having difficulty with replying to a message in rietveld.
Here's a screenshot of the exception: http://goo.gl/70iQ5v
(AttributeError at /review/20356/publish)
Is this a known issue? Maybe I'm doing something wrong?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On behalf of the Python development team, I'm reasonably happy to announce the
Python 3.3.4 release candidate 1.
Python 3.3.4 includes several security fixes and over 120 bug fixes compared to
the Python 3.3.3 release.
This release fully supports OS X 10.9 Mavericks. In particular, this release
fixes an issue that could cause previous versions of Python to crash when typing
in interactive mode on OS X 10.9.
Python 3.3 includes a range of improvements of the 3.x series, as well as easier
porting between 2.x and 3.x. In total, almost 500 API items are new or improved
in Python 3.3. For a more extensive list of changes in the 3.3 series, see
and for the detailed changelog of 3.3.4, see
To download Python 3.3.4 rc1 visit:
This is a preview release, please report any bugs to
The final version is scheduled to be released in two weeks' time, on or about
the 10th of February.
Georg Brandl, Release Manager
georg at python.org
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team and 3.3's contributors)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On behalf of the Python development team, I'm quite pleased to announce
the third beta release of Python 3.4.
This is a preview release, and its use is not recommended for
Python 3.4 includes a range of improvements of the 3.x series, including
hundreds of small improvements and bug fixes. Major new features and
changes in the 3.4 release series include:
* PEP 428, a "pathlib" module providing object-oriented filesystem paths
* PEP 435, a standardized "enum" module
* PEP 436, a build enhancement that will help generate introspection
information for builtins
* PEP 442, improved semantics for object finalization
* PEP 443, adding single-dispatch generic functions to the standard library
* PEP 445, a new C API for implementing custom memory allocators
* PEP 446, changing file descriptors to not be inherited by default
* PEP 450, a new "statistics" module
* PEP 451, standardizing module metadata for Python's module import system
* PEP 453, a bundled installer for the *pip* package manager
* PEP 454, a new "tracemalloc" module for tracing Python memory allocations
* PEP 456, a new hash algorithm for Python strings and binary data
* PEP 3154, a new and improved protocol for pickled objects
* PEP 3156, a new "asyncio" module, a new framework for asynchronous I/O
Python 3.4 is now in "feature freeze", meaning that no new features will be
added. The final release is projected for mid-March 2014.
To download Python 3.4.0b3 visit:
Please consider trying Python 3.4.0b3 with your code and reporting any
new issues you notice to:
Larry Hastings, Release Manager
larry at hastings.org
(on behalf of the entire python-dev team and 3.4's contributors)
Rather than leaving my ideas undocumented until the language summit in
April, I wrote up what I see as the critical issues in our current
workflow and how I believe Zuul could help us resolve them as a PEP:
I don't think we should *do* anything about this until after PyCon US,
but wanted to publish something that clearly explained my thinking
rather than surprising people with it at the summit.
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
The Great Argument Clinic Conversion Derby has been underway for about
2.5 weeks. Here's a status update. I'll try to keep this short.
It's taking a lot longer than I expected it to. This has been due to
* bugs and flaws in Argument Clinic itself (a "flaw" is an "I didn't
foresee that" design error),
* having to make changes to CPython itself, which required *very*
careful work and was therefore quite time consuming, and
* my time being a huge bottleneck.
I'd like to extend the Derby by two more weeks and add a fourth beta.
I've made huge improvements to the implementation of Argument Clinic, in
response to bugs filed and crippling-missing-features requested.
Argument Clinic is growing more sophisticated by the day.
I've also, regrettably, made some modifications to CPython, to better
support signatures in builtins. In particular, I had to modify four
additional callable types to add support for "__text_signature__",
including PyTypeObject. These changes were reviewed by Nick and Guido,
so I have a high confidence that the changes will not destabilize Python
3.4. (If there is demand, I can compile a list of all such
arguably-not-a-bugfix post-feature-freeze changes to Python 3.4 if
The main problem with running the Derby: everything is gated on me.
Until just recently, I've had to review every patch, and I've had to
make every modification to clinic.py. I've been spending all day, every
day, with very little time off, on the Derby, and still it's nowhere
This is changing, slowly. I now have a handful of people who make small
changes to clinic.py or review patches. But major brain surgery on the
tool is still up to me, and I still have a half-week's worth of work on
my to-do list.
I've been prioritizing bug fixes and crippling missing features over
reviewing patches. (I figured that would maximize the productivity of
the Derby participants.) As a result, I have a patch backlog that would
makes you cry. I've been reviewing patches FIFO, and the patch waiting
at the front of my queue is ten days old.
This means that a lot of the conversion work done for the Derby has not
been checked in yet.
To be honest I have absolutely no idea what % of files have been
converted so far. Figuring it out would use time that would be better
spent catching up on my to-do list.
I'd like to continue the Derby for two more weeks and insert a fourth
beta. That would put the release date for Python 3.4 final on March 31st.
With the new conversion policy in place (see my recent posting to
python-dev), the number of new surprises that I would have to spend time
on should drop to about zero. (My new answer: "That will have to wait
until 3.5.") I have about a half-week's worth of bug fixes / missing
features work for clinic.py right now; once that's done I'll be able to
spend nearly all of my time on code reviews. (If I catch up, I might
even start doing conversions myself!) So I expect the pace of the Derby
to ramp up in the coming week.
I *would* ask for three more weeks, not two, just to be dead certain we
finish before rc1. But then the release date for 3.4 final would be
April 7th, two days before the start of PyCon US 2014, and I don't want
to shave it that close. If we had to slip again for some reason, we'd
be cutting the release *during* PyCon US, and I want to avoid *that* at
all costs, particularly as that may be impractical for the platform
release manager (their build environment may not be portable). I want
3.4 out before PyCon US so that trunk is open for 3.5 during the dev
The alternative would be: stop all submissions to the Derby right now,
iterate (quickly!) on the existing patches, check them in, and proceed
In theory, as release manager I could simply announce we were doing
this. However, I only want to continue doing this if I have approval
from the core dev community. If slipping the schedule again means a
majority of people withdraw their support for the Derby, then it would
probably be best to cut our losses now.
Please vote for either "continue the Derby" (which also means slipping
the schedule and adding a fourth beta) or "stop the Derby".
Thank you for your attention,
Thank you very much for accepting me as a member of your team!
Python is the most beautiful, simple and complex language I
ever knew, and it's an honor for me to help to make it better.
Just to give you an idea of how passionate I am about python,
I'd like to tell you a short story. When I just started to
work on PEP 362 with Brett and Larry, we had a few discussions
of how things should be going and I promised them to draft a
first version of the PEP and implementation by the end of the
week. On Friday, I decided to make a surprise for my girlfriend
and booked a weekend in Montreal, and in the morning of
Saturday I woke up with a fever of 37 degrees. Well, it's just
37, I'll be OK by the time we drive there. Hell I was wrong.
For two days, the only thing I was romantically attached to,
was my bed in the hotel room. And midday of Sunday, I realized
that I have a promise to fulfill. So here I was, sitting on the
bed, with a fever of 39 degrees, with one eye closed, and the
other one so filled with tears so I had to squish it to have
a clear spot on the screen, working on that draft and writing
unittests. All because I knew that while it'd be OK to wait a
few days, we didn't actually have time for that, because the
release was just around the corner, and every day was important.
So, again, thank you very much! I now have to break the
buildbot I guess..
I'd like to suggest granting commit access to Yury Selivanov,
primarily to assist with maintenance of the inspect module.
That's currently an orphaned module in the experts index, and Yury was
a driving force behind getting PEP 362 (the new introspection API)
accepted for Python 3.3, and has also picked up on a number of
introspection support issues we missed when adding other features to
Python 3.4 (like inspect.signature not handling
functools.partialmethod correctly - it simply didn't occur to me or
Alon to add test cases for that). He's also created a reimplementation
of inspect.getfullargspec for Python 3.4 (not yet merged, but close to
being so) that will allow almost all existing introspection code to
benefit from the Argument Clinic changes, not just the code that has
been ported to the new PEP 362 introspection API.
Yury's interested in the idea of commit access, and is comfortable
with our approach to code review and automated testing. As usual when
nominating someone, I'm happy to handle the mentoring period and
addressing any questions Yury may have about the mechanics of actually
pushing changes rather than having to wait for me or Larry or someone
else to merge them on his behalf.
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
I noticed that Vajrasky Kok is very active on bugs.python.org. He
produced many patches and contribued to various modules written in
Python and C.
Search "Vajrasky Kok" in the Mercurial history to see how many
contributions he made recently.
On http://bugs.python.org his nickname is "vajrasky".
He knows the process of review and update his patch when he got remarks.
If you consider that he needs a mentor, I can be his mentor.
On 21 Jan 2014 01:19, "Meador Inge" <meadori(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> If people find this idea interesting, I would like to invite some of
>> the Mercurial devs and OpenStack infrastructure folks (i.e. Zuul devs)
>> to the language summit (leaving it up to them if they stay for the
>> whole day, or just this part). I believe we already have enough
>> Reitveld, Roundup and Buildbot experience amongst the core development
>> team to assess the feasibility of the idea from that side of things.
> I find the idea interesting and plan to watch the linked video and
> read up on this. Is it an all or nothing thing (i.e. either all devs
> operate using the new Zull-based method or no one does)?
All-or-nothing - with merge gating, *only* Zuul commits to the main
branches/clone (so we'd also be in for some interesting discussions with
the release managers and installer buiders - we may need to provide them
with the ability to override the normal gating process).
The underlying philosophy of the approach is reflected in the fact that
OpenStack doesn't have core committers or even core developers - they have
core reviewers instead.
> # Meador
One of the items I have on the language summit agenda is the core
reviewer workflow used by the OpenStack project, specifically Zuul,
the merge gating system that powers that workflow. I know some other
folks here are working on OpenStack these days so this will already be
familiar to them, but many aren't. I'm not either, but my day job
involves developing CI workflow automation tools for Red Hat, so I'm
paying very close attention to what the OpenStack infrastructure team
are up to.
We don't necessarily have to wait until the language summit to discuss
it though, so I figured I'd pass along a link to James Blair's
presentation at linux.conf.au 2014:
The Zuul docs are at: http://ci.openstack.org/zuul/
The OpenStack Zuul dashboard is at: http://status.openstack.org/zuul/
The key difference, relative to our current workflow, is to take the
human out of the loop for the final pre-merge test run. Instead, once
a core reviewer gives a patch a +2, the process of taking that
reviewed patch, checking it still merges correctly, checking it passes
all the tests on the stable buildbots and then merging it into source
control would all be handled automatically by Zuul.
This will require and/or enable eliminating several of the current
annoyances in the core development workflow:
- the annoyingly manual "download patch, apply patch, run tests
locally, commit change, push change, watch the buildbots for problems"
approach goes away entirely (while what we have now is substantially
better than what we had a few years ago, times move on and projects
like OpenStack raise the bar when it comes to figuring out how to make
the most effective of scarce contributor time)
- spurious conflicts on NEWS will go away (as we'll have to finally
address this in order to avoid breaking Zuul's gating)
- push races will go away (since merging would now be handled by Zuul,
non conflicting changes would be rebased automatically, and only
conflicting changes would be bounced back to the submitter for
updates). Critically, conference sprints might create a backlog in
Zuul, but they wouldn't completely break a developer's workflow
through incessant push races relating to non-conflicting changes.
- POSIX developers breaking the Windows buildbots and vice-versa
(since Zuul would ensure at least the stable buildbots remain green by
blocking such changes before they hit the main branches). This means
even when we get such things wrong, we will no longer have the time
pressure of needing to unbreak other people's builds.
- approving and merging pure docs patches should become largely
trivial, as it should be possible to configure Zuul to only check that
the docs build cleanly for those, rather than running the full test
suite across all the stable buildbots.
- checking for a contributor licensing agreement in Roundup before
processing a patch could also be automated, rather than requiring core
developers to check for it manually.
Zuul, as OpenStack use it, already has plugins for the Gerrit code
review/git repo management system (at least as customised by the
OpenStack infrastructure folks), as well as for Jenkins to run the
automated CI tests.
Rather than suggesting wholesale changes to our own infrastructure,
what I am suggesting we consider is devoting time (and potentially PSF
funding) to getting Zuul to play nice with Roundup, Reitveld, BuildBot
and Mercurial. (Like the rest of our existing infrastructure, Zuul is
a web service implemented in Python).
The main technical challenges I foresee are:
* dealing with maintenance branches (especially for patches which
don't merge forward cleanly), since OpenStack currently appear to
"handle" that limitation by just not providing upstream maintenance
branches at all, leaving downstream vendors to fill the gap
* finally cleaning up the way we manage the NEWS file (see
http://bugs.python.org/issue18967 for discussion)
* replicating Gerrit's patch approval/voting mechanism in Reitveld
* replicating Gerrit's merge/rebase capabilities in Mercurial (I'm
sure Mercurial is functionally capable of this, I just don't know the
best way to model it).
* actually writing the new Zuul plugins to talk to the services used
by the CPython project, rather than those used by OpenStack
There would also be a non-trivial update to the developer guide
involved in such a change, since it would heavily impact the core
developer workflows, as well as the way external contributors interact
with the core development team.
If people find this idea interesting, I would like to invite some of
the Mercurial devs and OpenStack infrastructure folks (i.e. Zuul devs)
to the language summit (leaving it up to them if they stay for the
whole day, or just this part). I believe we already have enough
Reitveld, Roundup and Buildbot experience amongst the core development
team to assess the feasibility of the idea from that side of things.
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia