15.05.18 14:51, Ned Deily пише:

This is it! We are down to THE FINAL WEEK for 3.7.0! Please get your feature fixes, bug fixes, and documentation updates in before 2018-05-21 ~23:59 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12:00). That's about 7 days from now. We will then tag and produce the 3.7.0 release candidate. Our goal continues been to be to have no changes between the release candidate and final; AFTER NEXT WEEK'S RC1, CHANGES APPLIED TO THE 3.7 BRANCH WILL BE RELEASED IN 3.7.1. Please double-check that there are no critical problems outstanding and that documentation for new features in 3.7 is complete (including NEWS and What's New items), and that 3.7 is getting exposure and tested with our various platorms and third-party distributions and applications. Those of us who are participating in the development sprints at PyCon US 2018 here in Cleveland can feel the excitement building as we work through the remaining issues, including completing the "What's New in 3.7" document and final feature documentation. (We wish you could all be here.)

The "What's New in 3.7" document is still not complete. Actually it is far completing. In the previous releases somebody made a thoughtful review of the NEWS file and added all significant changes in What's New, and also removed insignificant entries, reorganized entries, fixed errors, improved wording and formatting. Many thanks to Martin Panter, Elvis Pranskevichus, Yury Selivanov, R. David Murray, Nick Coghlan, Antoine Pitrou, Victor Stinner and others for their great work! But seems in 3.7 this documents doesn't have an editor.

Elvis has been working on the What’s New doc at the sprints this week. He should be checking in his edits soon. Stay tuned!

-- Ned Deily nad@python.org -- []

On May 17, 2018, at 14:31, Serhiy Storchaka storchaka@gmail.com wrote:

15.05.18 14:51, Ned Deily пише:

...

This is it! We are down to THE FINAL WEEK for 3.7.0! Please get your feature fixes, bug fixes, and documentation updates in before 2018-05-21 ~23:59 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12:00). That's about 7 days from now. We will then tag and produce the 3.7.0 release candidate. Our goal continues been to be to have no changes between the release candidate and final; AFTER NEXT WEEK'S RC1, CHANGES APPLIED TO THE 3.7 BRANCH WILL BE RELEASED IN 3.7.1. Please double-check that there are no critical problems outstanding and that documentation for new features in 3.7 is complete (including NEWS and What's New items), and that 3.7 is getting exposure and tested with our various platorms and third-party distributions and applications. Those of us who are participating in the development sprints at PyCon US 2018 here in Cleveland can feel the excitement building as we work through the remaining issues, including completing the "What's New in 3.7" document and final feature documentation. (We wish you could all be here.)

The "What's New in 3.7" document is still not complete. Actually it is far completing. In the previous releases somebody made a thoughtful review of the NEWS file and added all significant changes in What's New, and also removed insignificant entries, reorganized entries, fixed errors, improved wording and formatting. Many thanks to Martin Panter, Elvis Pranskevichus, Yury Selivanov, R. David Murray, Nick Coghlan, Antoine Pitrou, Victor Stinner and others for their great work! But seems in 3.7 this documents doesn't have an editor.

We are going to extend for 48 hours the deadline for 3.7.0rc1, that is, until 2018-05-23 23:59 AOE. While we have made tremendous progress towards the release candidate over the past week especially with the huge efforts at the PyCon US Sprints, we still have some important issues to resolve. A stumbling block has been the increased instability in the test suite, primarily in test_asyncio, which has caused delays in merging PRs due to intermittent failures in CI test runs and which has caused widespread buildbot failures. Another factor is that this weekend and Monday are public holidays in many countries, something I did not take into account when drawing up the schedule. (Note that next weekend is a major public holiday in the USA.) So let's plan on using the extra two days to work through the remaining release blockers.

Thanks again! --Ned

On May 15, 2018, at 07:51, Ned Deily nad@python.org wrote:

This is it! We are down to THE FINAL WEEK for 3.7.0! Please get your feature fixes, bug fixes, and documentation updates in before 2018-05-21 ~23:59 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12:00). That's about 7 days from now. We will then tag and produce the 3.7.0 release candidate. Our goal continues been to be to have no changes between the release candidate and final; AFTER NEXT WEEK'S RC1, CHANGES APPLIED TO THE 3.7 BRANCH WILL BE RELEASED IN 3.7.1. Please double-check that there are no critical problems outstanding and that documentation for new features in 3.7 is complete (including NEWS and What's New items), and that 3.7 is getting exposure and tested with our various platorms and third-party distributions and applications. Those of us who are participating in the development sprints at PyCon US 2018 here in Cleveland can feel the excitement building as we work through the remaining issues, including completing the "What's New in 3.7" document and final feature documentation. (We wish you could all be here.)

As noted before, the ABI for 3.7.0 was frozen as of 3.7.0b3. You should now be treating the 3.7 branch as if it were already released and in maintenance mode. That means you should only push the kinds of changes that are appropriate for a maintenance release: non-ABI-changing bug and feature fixes and documentation updates. If you find a problem that requires an ABI-altering or other significant user-facing change (for example, something likely to introduce an incompatibility with existing users' code or require rebuilding of user extension modules), please make sure to set the b.p.o issue to "release blocker" priority and describe there why you feel the change is necessary. If you are reviewing PRs for 3.7 (and please do!), be on the lookout for and flag potential incompatibilities (we've all made them).

Thanks again for all of your hard work towards making 3.7.0 yet another great release - coming to a website near you on 06-15!

Release Managerly Yours, --Ned

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0537/

-- Ned Deily nad@python.org -- []

Also there's https://bugs.python.org/issue33612 which appears quite critical.

Regards

Antoine.

Le 23/05/2018 à 13:45, Serhiy Storchaka a écrit :

15.05.18 14:51, Ned Deily пише:

...

This is it! We are down to THE FINAL WEEK for 3.7.0! Please get your feature fixes, bug fixes, and documentation updates in before 2018-05-21 ~23:59 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12:00). That's about 7 days from now. We will then tag and produce the 3.7.0 release candidate. Our goal continues been to be to have no changes between the release candidate and final; AFTER NEXT WEEK'S RC1, CHANGES APPLIED TO THE 3.7 BRANCH WILL BE RELEASED IN 3.7.1. Please double-check that there are no critical problems outstanding and that documentation for new features in 3.7 is complete (including NEWS and What's New items), and that 3.7 is getting exposure and tested with our various platorms and third-party distributions and applications. Those of us who are participating in the development sprints at PyCon US 2018 here in Cleveland can feel the excitement building as we work through the remaining issues, including completing the "What's New in 3.7" document and final feature documentation. (We wish you could all be here.)

Is it possible to add yet one beta instead?

CI was broken for few latest days, tests are not passed on my computer still (and fail on some buildbots), updating What's New exposed new features which need additional testing (and maybe fixing or reverting), and I'm not comfortable about some changes which would be harder to fix after the release.

---

python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

2018-05-23 13:45 GMT+02:00 Serhiy Storchaka storchaka@gmail.com:

CI was broken for few latest days, tests are not passed on my computer still (and fail on some buildbots), (...)

I looked at buildbots and I confirm that many of the 3.x buildbots are red:

AMD64 FreeBSD 10.x Shared 3.x AMD64 Windows8.1 Non-Debug 3.x ARMv7 Ubuntu 3.x PPC64 Fedora 3.x s390x RHEL 3.x x86 Gentoo Installed with X 3.x x86 Gentoo Refleaks 3.x AMD64 Windows8.1 Refleaks 3.x

Victor

On May 23, 2018, at 07:45, Serhiy Storchaka storchaka@gmail.com wrote:

15.05.18 14:51, Ned Deily пише:

...

This is it! We are down to THE FINAL WEEK for 3.7.0! Please get your feature fixes, bug fixes, and documentation updates in before 2018-05-21 ~23:59 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12:00). That's about 7 days from now. We will then tag and produce the 3.7.0 release candidate. Our goal continues been to be to have no changes between the release candidate and final; AFTER NEXT WEEK'S RC1, CHANGES APPLIED TO THE 3.7 BRANCH WILL BE RELEASED IN 3.7.1. Please double-check that there are no critical problems outstanding and that documentation for new features in 3.7 is complete (including NEWS and What's New items), and that 3.7 is getting exposure and tested with our various platorms and third-party distributions and applications. Those of us who are participating in the development sprints at PyCon US 2018 here in Cleveland can feel the excitement building as we work through the remaining issues, including completing the "What's New in 3.7" document and final feature documentation. (We wish you could all be here.) Is it possible to add yet one beta instead?

CI was broken for few latest days, tests are not passed on my computer still (and fail on some buildbots), updating What's New exposed new features which need additional testing (and maybe fixing or reverting), and I'm not comfortable about some changes which would be harder to fix after the release.

it is possible but there's no point in doing either another beta or a release candidate until we understand and address the current blocking issues, like the major buildbot failures. We have another 24 hours until rc1 was planned to be tagged. Let's keep working on the known issues and we will make a decision then.

-- Ned Deily nad@python.org -- []

24.05.18 10:23, Ned Deily пише:

So this *is* really your last chance: if you know of any true releasing blocking issues for 3.7.0, you have about 12 more hours to log it in the bug tracker as a "release blocker". I'll send out an email once we start the release manufacturing. Any merges to the 3.7 branch after that will be released in 3.7.1 which we tentatively are planning to ship sometime before the end of July (< 2018-07-31). If you do find a critical problem in 3.7.0rc1 that you think needs to be fixed in 3.7.0, please merge a fix into 3.7 (and other appropriate branches), leave the issue open and marked as "release blocker", and add a note why you think the fix needs to be cherry-picked into 3.7.0.

I have doubts about two issues. I feel the responsibility for them because I had the opportunity to solve them before, but I lost it.

1. Changes in the AST. Few third-party projects was broken by it and already are fixed. I suppose yet few projects will be changed after 3.7 be released. It is interesting that IPython was broken in different way than other projects. It was needed to reintroduce the docstring in the list of statements, effectively reverting the 3.7 change. IPython allows to enter several statements at prompt, and therefore it compiles them with the 'exec' mode instead of 'single' as the CPython REPL and IDLE shell. Currently CPython doesn't allow you to paste arbitrary script like the following:

if a: b if c: d

You need to add an empty line between top-level complex statements. If one time CPython will add support of pasting several statements without empty lines between, it might need to add the same hack as IPython. I afraid that we might be needed to change AST again, in 3.7.1 or in 3.8.0.

2. Pickle support in typing is not perfect. I was going to fix it (I had almost ready code), but lost a chance of doing this before. It can be changed in 3.7.1, but this means that pickles of some derived typing types created in 3.7.0 will be not compatible with future versions (may be 3.7.1 will not break compatibility, but it will be broken in future because we will not specially supported compatibility with 3.7.0).

There is third issue, related to NetBSD, but it is less important.

I think two weeks will be enough for fixing these issues, but not at rc1 stage.

2. Pickle support in typing is not perfect. I was going to fix it (I had almost ready code), but lost a chance of doing this before. It can be changed in 3.7.1, but this means that pickles of some derived typing types created in 3.7.0 will be not compatible with future versions (may be 3.7.1 will not break compatibility, but it will be broken in future because we will not specially supported compatibility with 3.7.0).

I think I had fixed this one. At least the examples reported on typing tracker are now fixed. Do you have some other examples that still fail?

-- Ivan

On 24 May 2018 at 12:02, Ned Deily nad@python.org wrote:

On May 24, 2018, at 11:35, Serhiy Storchaka storchaka@gmail.com wrote:

...

I have doubts about two issues. I feel the responsibility for them because I had the opportunity to solve them before, but I lost it. [...]

Serhiy, what are the bugs.python.org issue numbers for these? Are they marked as "release blocker"?

-- Ned Deily nad@python.org -- []

---

python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

But cases not supported before 3.7 (like List[int]) now produce fragile pickles.

List[int] pickled in 3.7 can't be un-pickled in 3.6, but I wouldn't worry too much about this because it never worked in 3.6. I remember you proposed using __getitem__ in __reduce__, but I am not sure it is a better way, although it will fix the above problem.

I don't think this one is a blocker and we can move this discussion back to b.p.o., unless you have some particular concerns.

The AST one however looks more serious.

-- Ivan

On 24 May 2018 at 12:26, Serhiy Storchaka storchaka@gmail.com wrote:

24.05.18 19:02, Ned Deily пише:

...

On May 24, 2018, at 11:35, Serhiy Storchaka storchaka@gmail.com wrote:

...

I have doubts about two issues. I feel the responsibility for them because I had the opportunity to solve them before, but I lost it.

[...]

Serhiy, what are the bugs.python.org issue numbers for these? Are they marked as "release blocker"?

For docstring in AST: https://bugs.python.org/issue32911

Inada's patch looked complex (actually it mostly restored the code before his previous change). We didn't know about IPython and we decided that it is not worth to change this code at this stage (after beta2). And definitely it will be later to do this after rc1.

For pickling of typing types: https://bugs.python.org/issue32873

Ivan fixed cases supported before 3.7. They now are backward and forward compatible. But cases not supported before 3.7 (like List[int]) now produce fragile pickles.

---

python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

On 05/24/2018 10:08 AM, Ned Deily wrote:

If you (or anyone else) feels strongly enough about it, you should re-open the issue now and make it as a "release blocker" and we should discuss the implications and possible plans of action in the issue.

About that.  According to the Python Dev Guide:

Whether a bug is a *release blocker* for the current release
schedule is decided by the release manager. Triagers may recommend
this priority and should add the release manager to the nosy list.

https://devguide.python.org/triaging/#priority

Of course, a particular release manager (e.g. Ned here) can change the policy for their releases.  But by default, unless you're the release manager for release X, you should not mark issues as "Release Blocker" for release X.  This seems like a sensible policy to me, and effective immediately I'm going to hold to this policy for my releases (3.4 and 3.5).

//arry/

On 24.05.2018 20:09, Ned Deily wrote:

On May 24, 2018, at 13:46, Larry Hastings larry@hastings.org wrote:

...

On 05/24/2018 10:08 AM, Ned Deily wrote:

...

If you (or anyone else) feels strongly enough about it, you should re-open the issue now and make it as a "release blocker" and we should discuss the implications and possible plans of action in the issue.

About that. According to the Python Dev Guide: Whether a bug is a *release blocker* for the current release schedule is decided by the release manager. Triagers may recommend this priority and should add the release manager to the nosy list.

https://devguide.python.org/triaging/#priority Of course, a particular release manager (e.g. Ned here) can change the policy for their releases. But by default, unless you're the release manager for release X, you should not mark issues as "Release Blocker" for release X. This seems like a sensible policy to me, and effective immediately I'm going to hold to this policy for my releases (3.4 and 3.5).

I think we're reading the same words a bit differently. There's no question that the Release Manager makes the ultimate call whether an issue remains a "Release Blocker" or not. But it seems to me that the safest and most reliable way to ensure that the Release Manager makes that decision is by having a triager or submitter *provisionally* set the priority to "release blocker". It is then on the Release Manager's radar to accept or reject. I think that policy is totally in the spirit of the Dev Guide wording but I'm fine with other release managers accepting differing interpretations for their releases ;)

As for 3.6.x and 3.7.x, I would much prefer to have too many proposed "release blocker" issues than to have too few. And the sooner they are reported, the better.

Ned's interpretation is the one I'm using for submitting such issues (maybe not twelve hours before a final release). What other documented ways would you have to get the attention of a release manager.

Having different interpretations depending on the release manager doesn't look very practically.

Matthias

On 25 May 2018 at 04:09, Ned Deily nad@python.org wrote:

...

On 05/24/2018 10:08 AM, Ned Deily wrote:

...

If you (or anyone else) feels strongly enough about it, you should re-open the issue now and make it as a "release blocker" and we should discuss the implications and possible plans of action in the issue.

About that. According to the Python Dev Guide: Whether a bug is a *release blocker* for the current release schedule is decided by the release manager. Triagers may recommend this priority and should add the release manager to the nosy list.

https://devguide.python.org/triaging/#priority Of course, a particular release manager (e.g. Ned here) can change the

On May 24, 2018, at 13:46, Larry Hastings larry@hastings.org wrote: policy for their releases. But by default, unless you're the release manager for release X, you should not mark issues as "Release Blocker" for release X. This seems like a sensible policy to me, and effective immediately I'm going to hold to this policy for my releases (3.4 and 3.5).

I think we're reading the same words a bit differently. There's no question that the Release Manager makes the ultimate call whether an issue remains a "Release Blocker" or not. But it seems to me that the safest and most reliable way to ensure that the Release Manager makes that decision is by having a triager or submitter *provisionally* set the priority to "release blocker". It is then on the Release Manager's radar to accept or reject. I think that policy is totally in the spirit of the Dev Guide wording but I'm fine with other release managers accepting differing interpretations for their releases ;)

Right, my interpretation of that policy has been that to request RM review of a potential blocker I should:

• set the status to Release Blocker
• add the relevant RM to the nosy list
• add a comment explaining why I think it might be a release blocker and asking the RM to take a look it at

The RM then makes their decision by either commenting to say they're accepting the issue as a blocker, bumping it down to deferred blocker (if they don't think it's a blocker *yet*), or else bumping it down to one of the non-blocking priorities (if they don't agree that it's a blocker at all).

Cheers, Nick.

-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

Well, I must admit, I'm a little baffled.  The text states unequivocally that the release manager is the only person who decides whether or not a bug is a "release blocker".  This means nobody else is permitted to make this decision.  So I don't see how somebody else can mark a bug as a "release blocker" without first deciding that it's a "release blocker"--which they're not permitted to do given the rules laid down by the Dev Guide.

But if that's not the intended Core Dev policy, then that's not the intended Core Dev policy.  Given that literally everybody else interpreted the text differently than me, this suggests that the text is at the very least ambiguous, if not outright misleading and should be updated.  I'll try to put together a PR to bring it more in line with everyone's de facto interpretation.

BTW, this all came up because a core dev marked a minor documentation change as a "release blocker" for the 3.5 branch, stating that they did this "because it'd be nice to see it make it out in the next release".  ISTM that opinions vary on what constitutes a "release blocker", and maybe empowering only the release managers to make that call would be a good way forward--which is what ISTM is what the Dev Guide already says anyway.  But I guess not!

//arry/

On 05/25/2018 08:26 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:

On Fri, May 25, 2018, 07:53 Nick Coghlan, mailto:ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 25 May 2018 at 04:09, Ned Deily <nad@python.org
<mailto:nad@python.org>> wrote:

    On May 24, 2018, at 13:46, Larry Hastings <larry@hastings.org
    <mailto:larry@hastings.org>> wrote:
    > On 05/24/2018 10:08 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
    >> If you (or anyone else) feels strongly enough about it, you
    should re-open the issue now and make it as a "release
    blocker" and we should discuss the implications and possible
    plans of action in the issue.
    >
    > About that.  According to the Python Dev Guide:
    > Whether a bug is a *release blocker* for the current release
    schedule is decided by the release manager. Triagers may
    recommend this priority and should add the release manager to
    the nosy list.
    >
    > https://devguide.python.org/triaging/#priority
    > Of course, a particular release manager (e.g. Ned here) can
    change the policy for their releases. But by default, unless
    you're the release manager for release X, you should not mark
    issues as "Release Blocker" for release X.  This seems like a
    sensible policy to me, and effective immediately I'm going to
    hold to this policy for my releases (3.4 and 3.5).

    I think we're reading the same words a bit differently. 
    There's no question that the Release Manager makes the
    ultimate call whether an issue remains a "Release Blocker" or
    not.  But it seems to me that the safest and most reliable way
    to ensure that the Release Manager makes that decision is by
    having a triager or submitter *provisionally* set the priority
    to "release blocker".  It is then on the Release Manager's
    radar to accept or reject.  I think that policy is totally in
    the spirit of the Dev Guide wording but I'm fine with other
    release managers accepting differing interpretations for their
    releases ;)


Right, my interpretation of that policy has been that to request
RM review of a potential blocker I should:

- set the status to Release Blocker
- add the relevant RM to the nosy list
- add a comment explaining why I think it might be a release
blocker and asking the RM to take a look it at

The RM then makes their decision by either commenting to say
they're accepting the issue as a blocker, bumping it down to
deferred blocker (if they don't think it's a blocker *yet*), or
else bumping it down to one of the non-blocking priorities (if
they don't agree that it's a blocker at all).

That's how I've always done it as well. As Ned said, better safe than sorry by guessing at something being a release blocker than something accidentally being lost in the cracks.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   | ncoghlan@gmail.com <mailto:ncoghlan@gmail.com>  
| Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org <mailto:python-committers@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

---

python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

In terms of process, it's always good to have a method to escalate a question to higher management in a way which doesn't require the manager to first parse long text messages.

So a status such as "Potential Release Blocker" or "RM Review" sounds like a good way forward.

Of course a friendly ping via some other channel usually also helps get attention :-)

-- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, May 30 2018)

...

...

Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/

::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::

eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ http://www.malemburg.com/

On 05/30/2018 10:21 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:

...

On May 30, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Larry Hastings mailto:larry@hastings.org> wrote:

ISTM that opinions vary on what constitutes a "release blocker", and maybe empowering only the release managers to make that call would be a good way forward--which is what ISTM is what the Dev Guide already says anyway.  But I guess not!

I think that RMs are empowered to decide what is a “real" release blocker, but you need some mechanism to flag an issue as potentially a release blocker for the RM to make a decision on it. Making a decision on that potentially release blocker should also itself be a release blocker (because if it’s possibly a release blocker, then we should treat it as such until the person empowered to make that call has decided one way or another).

So I think for the system to work, you need to either allow anyone to flag an issue as a release blocker, and the RM is empowered to say “No this really isn’t” and unflag it, or you need two flags, for release blocker, and maybe release blocker, and both block the release.

Yes, ISTM that the Dev Guide covers this.  The section on priority says:

Triagers may recommend this priority and should add the release
manager to the nosy list.

In other words: if a dev thinks an issue should be a release blocker for version X, they should add the RM to the nosy list and make a comment recommending the issue be escalated to release blocker.  I thought it was telling that it /doesn't/ instruct triagers to mark the issue as a release blocker themselves.

//arry/

On May 30, 2018, at 3:03 PM, Larry Hastings larry@hastings.org wrote:

Yes, ISTM that the Dev Guide covers this. The section on priority says: Triagers may recommend this priority and should add the release manager to the nosy list. In other words: if a dev thinks an issue should be a release blocker for version X, they should add the RM to the nosy list and make a comment recommending the issue be escalated to release blocker. I thought it was telling that it doesn't instruct triagers to mark the issue as a release blocker themselves.

That seems a rather poor way of handling it TBH. A key thing is that an escalation for a decision should itself be a release blocker, because if someone thinks the issue might be, then we should get a decision on whether it is or not before the release goes out. Relying on a comment seems far too easy for the release manager to accidentally miss it or forget about it.