Barry Warsaw wrote:

On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:

...

[Barry Warsaw]

...

So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My suggestion: 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do we need two more betas?

...

Yes to both questions.

I think that's contradictory :). If we need two betas, then 05-Nov becomes beta 5, 19-Nov is rc 2. If we don't need another rc then we can still do a final release on 03-Dec, otherwise we probably go 2 weeks later. I don't want to go much later than that though because then we get into the holiday season.

Do we need the full two weeks between rc's? Or is it too much of a pain to cut releases 3 weeks in a row?

E.g. something like:

15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0 beta 5 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 26-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 (if needed) 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final

Cheers, Nick.

Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/ncoghlan%40gmail.com

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

        http://www.boredomandlaziness.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:

...

[Barry Warsaw]

...

So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0. My suggestion: 15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do we need two more betas?

...

Yes to both questions.

I think that's contradictory :). If we need two betas, then 05-Nov becomes beta 5, 19-Nov is rc 2. If we don't need another rc then
we can still do a final release on 03-Dec, otherwise we probably go 2 weeks later. I don't want to go much later than that though because then
we get into the holiday season.

Do we need the full two weeks between rc's? Or is it too much of a
pain to cut releases 3 weeks in a row?

E.g. something like:

15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0 beta 5 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 26-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 (if needed) 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final

I won't be able to cut another release between the 15th and 5th, so at
least that one should be 2 weeks. If we don't need the additional rc,
then we can release early, which would put us just before the US
Thanksgiving holiday.

• -Barry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBSOvcQ3EjvBPtnXfVAQK5mwP9GQfw3zNvGhJWiSkZ2gQ1LNr0rnmfVmpF WcDePkz3e5nsOjtkwiN0rlYHIQE9ySPfvtqqrInBW8y97y79mTjiM4S32XHLyAsd WEWRb0ClcLuZs+JveAb8KF5pO0RlDgX9Dd6puuPr8kGa5aN/rosfsnXra1GrYpj3 JQghQ89JNkE= =+Ymq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2008/10/6 Raymond Hettinger <python@rcn.com>:

...

15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final

Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule? Do we need two more betas?

Yes to both questions.

I agree with you here.

I'm seeing that people are just starting to download and play with 3.0. I expect that we'll start getting more feedback on conversion issues, the C API, screwy interactions with operating systems, bytes/text issues, unanticipated interactions with other tools, etc. Each user will stress it in new ways and perhaps reveal a bunch of little integration issues and documentation issues. Those little fixups way go a long way toward establishing a good first impression and reputation for 3.0 from the outset.

And maybe also here, but bounded.

I don't want to keep deferring 3.0 months and months, I prefer to have a redesigned schedule now, and stick to it as much as possible, even if the 3.0 version is not as robust as we would want.

Regards,

-- . Facundo

Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/ PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/

[when 2 mailing lists are not enough... :-]

I'm seeing that people are just starting to download and play with 3.0. I expect that we'll start getting more feedback on conversion issues

+1 from this direction too. pywin32 has recently started looking seriously at py3k, and while things are in fairly good shape for us who are already "on the bandwagon", cleaning up a few rough edges would help people's first impressions - and as they say, you only get one chance at a good first impression...

More specifically, I think 2to3 is shaping up well. pywin32 is taking the approach of "port where possible, but keep in py2x syntax and convert at 'setup.py' time" and this is working out fairly well (in fact, with just a couple of helpers in pywintypes, I think we can support python 2.3 upwards). I believe that many projects may well take a similar approach as it allows them to defer a full commitment to py3k, so doing all we can to support this might help with that first impression. My experience is that this could best be achieved by addressing the following issues before release:

• Almost all open 2to3 issues that aren't truly edge cases should be resolved - if 2to3 doesn't work for people, they may be forced to (even temporarily) "fork" their project, which will cause concern. I'll note that good recent progress is being made here, but its still worth mentioning...

• Better support for 2to3 in distutils (specifically, the support in build_py is stale, plus 'build_scripts' and 'install_data' should convert .py files to py3k syntax.) An 'example' project that uses py2k syntax and "just works" on py3k using this strategy might be useful here.

• A standard 'helper script' that allows people to use py3k to execute a py2x syntax script by auto-converting the code. I've a 10ish-line script that uses lib2to3 plus exec() to achieve that result, but a helper in 2to3 for this would be nice. For a concrete use-case, we want to keep our distutils script in py2x syntax, but execute it via py3k. Its very possible this already exists and I've just missed it...

Either way, I'm fairly confident a pywin32 build for py3k will be available in the next month or 2 (but as a result, I'm not really in a position to help with the above for that period...)

Hopefully-helpfully,

Mark

...

• Better support for 2to3 in distutils (specifically, the support in build_py is stale, plus 'build_scripts' and 'install_data' should convert .py files to py3k syntax.)

Please do create a bug report for that. It sounds like it's easy to fix.

Yeah, build_py is fairly easy to fix, but I also needed to extend the support to build_scripts and install_data. In addition, some already reported bugs in 2to3 mean that some files fail to convert, and this breaks the entire process - so as a result I ended up duplicating lib2to3's 'refactor_items()' but with exceptions being logged and ingored rather than aborting the process. Oh - and I deleted the .bak files (a copy of the sources are converted, not the sources themselves)

Please see bugs 4072 and 4073 - but as mentioned below, the lack of a test case means I didn't supply a tested patch.

...

An 'example' project that uses py2k syntax and "just works" on py3k using this strategy might be useful here.

Perhaps pywin32 :-?

I don't think a demo project would do much good, as it doesn't exercise all the issues that may occur.

My idea was that the demo project would simply demonstrate the 2to3 concepts that such a project could use. pywin32 isn't a good example as it has a very non-trivial setup.py and a large set of C extensions (the demo I had in mind could avoid C extensions completely - C developers will already assume #ifdef will be their friend, but .py code is the unknown...)

It would basically be a 'distutils demo', could have a single .py module and a single .py script. setup.py would support both 2.x and 3.x and would demonstrate how the source is converted to py3k syntax before it is installed into the py3k distribution.

It would also provide a useful test case - eg, for the distutils bug above, I'm not sure how I can (a) demonstrate it is currently broken and (b) demonstrate a patch corrects the problem.

...

• A standard 'helper script' that allows people to use py3k to execute a py2x syntax script by auto-converting the code. I've a 10ish-line script that uses lib2to3 plus exec() to achieve that result, but a helper in 2to3 for this would be nice. For a concrete use-case, we want to keep our distutils script in py2x syntax, but execute it via py3k. Its very possible this already exists and I've just missed it...

For the case of setup.py, I was hoping that it could be written in compatible syntax even without needing conversion. That worked fine for my Django port. Is that not the case for pywin32?

setup.py catches and examines some exceptions. Consider the more general case though - pywin32 has a number of tests all of which will also be maintained in py2x syntax. It is extremely convenient to be able to execute:

% py3k run2.py my_test.py etc

And have 'my_test.py' (which is 2.x syntax) be executed directly by py3k without doing a full 'setup.py install' or manually invoking 2to3 via a temp file, etc. As mentioned, 'run2.py' is quite short and just uses lib2to3+exec, but I'm not sure everyone will work out how to roll their own...

Specifically, I believe that a script with similar capabilities could be installed with py3k in the "scripts" directory and it advertised as a reasonable way to directly execute your *scripts* which, although py3x compatible, are being maintained in py2x syntax. Below is my quick attempt at such a script, which I promptly stopped looking at as soon as it worked (ie, I'm not sure if all those options are needed, etc), but it does let me execute my tests using py3k directly from the source tree.

Cheers,

Mark

# This is a Python 3.x script to execute a python 2.x script by 2to3'ing it. import sys from lib2to3.refactor import RefactoringTool, get_fixers_from_package

fixers = get_fixers_from_package('lib2to3.fixes') options = dict(doctests_only=False, fix=[], list_fixes=[], print_function=False, verbose=False, write=True) r = RefactoringTool(fixers, options) script = sys.argv[1] data = open(script).read() print("Converting...") got = r.refactor_string(data, script) print("Executing...") # nuke ourselves from argv del sys.argv[1] exec(str(got))

On 10/7/08, Mark Hammond <mhammond@skippinet.com.au> wrote:

# This is a Python 3.x script to execute a python 2.x script by 2to3'ing it. import sys from lib2to3.refactor import RefactoringTool, get_fixers_from_package

fixers = get_fixers_from_package('lib2to3.fixes') options = dict(doctests_only=False, fix=[], list_fixes=[], print_function=False, verbose=False, write=True)

Note that only the print_function option is used.

r = RefactoringTool(fixers, options) script = sys.argv[1] data = open(script).read() print("Converting...") got = r.refactor_string(data, script) print("Executing...") # nuke ourselves from argv del sys.argv[1] exec(str(got))

---

python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

-- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's nothing quite as beautiful as an oboe... except a chicken stuck in a vacuum cleaner."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:

...

So, we need to come up with a new release schedule for Python 3.0.
My suggestion:

15-Oct-2008 3.0 beta 4 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 2 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final

Given what still needs to be done, is this a reasonable schedule?
Do we need two more betas?

I know I'm contradicting what I said earlier, but perhaps we should just forget going back to beta and stick to ever-more-perfect release candidates? In other worlds release candidates often contain tons of imperfections (I believe I've seen this both for Java and Windows) and the label "release candidate" more clearly encourages people to download and play with it, which is what we need at this point! Then the schedule would be something like

15-Oct-2008 3.0 rc 2 05-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 3 19-Nov-2008 3.0 rc 4 03-Dec-2008 3.0 final

I'm okay with that too. It does seem odd to go back to beta then
release another rc. What's in a name, anyway? <wink>. And it is good
that more people are downloading it now that it's rc.

• -Barry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBSOvb93EjvBPtnXfVAQJTQAP/cmNdzd/SRymxXvW85EnW2NTHUkh1Auw9 bGlbSC0BF2p9ArgbDLPh/X4uatB3UaqoNeq5LTWHL2f9iCnsI7lFMPuexGr+3t4l Xmld8qN77j4GpU6bXL8uUo3/vlhU4MiG5ETl0kMH30f47srOAAGEGZAqW9jAM92I YSkQPSgBdYo= =+s9t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----