Mailman 3 October 2001 - Python-Dev

Goals for patch selection for 2.1.2
by Martin von Loewis Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

Hi Anthony, Your write-up of management principles for 2.1.2 sounds very reasonable, I think all these principles should be enforced. One open issue would be to come up with a release schedule. Should you restrict yourself to patches that also appear in 2.2 (perhaps in a back-ported fashion), or will you give a deadline for new patches to come in? If the former, I think releasing 2.1.2 around the time that 2.2 is released (perhaps earlier) would be desirable. Thanks for volunteering, Martin

2 1

Bug 216405
by Thomas Heller Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

I know most of you are busy with the release, but may I beg again that SF bug #216405 be finally fixed in Python 2.2? I can apply the patch myself, if nobody has time, but I need an OK from Guido ;-) The bug is currently marked closed, resolution is set to 'later'. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=216405&group_id=54… I know that the buffer stuff is somewhat (broken|fragile|dangerous, pick your favorite here), but this does at least fix a small point. Here is the complete patch against the current CVS sources, I've made a build with this patch applied, and the whole test suite runs the same way as it does without this patch (can only test on windows): 147 tests OK. 34 tests skipped: test_al test_bsddb test_cd test_cl test_commands test_crypt test_dbm test_dl test_fcntl test_fork1 test_gdbm test_gl test_grp test_gzip test_imgfile test_largefile test_linuxaudiodev test_mhlib test_minidom test_nis test_openpty test_poll test_pty test_pwd test_pyexpat test_sax test_signal test_socket_ssl test_socketserver test_sunaudiodev test_sundry test_timing test_zipfile test_zlib 8 skips unexpected on win32: test_zipfile test_bsddb test_sax test_sundry test_minidom test_zlib test_pyexpat test_gzip Thomas Index: bufferobject.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/python/python/dist/src/Objects/bufferobject.c,v retrieving revision 2.15 diff -c -r2.15 bufferobject.c *** bufferobject.c 2001/08/24 18:34:26 2.15 --- bufferobject.c 2001/10/19 12:46:33 *************** *** 73,83 **** offset = count; if ( offset + size > count ) size = count - offset; ! ! /* if the base object is another buffer, then "deref" it */ ! if ( PyBuffer_Check(base) ) base = ((PyBufferObject *)base)->b_base; ! return _PyBuffer_FromMemory(base, (char *)p + offset, size, readonly); } --- 73,85 ---- offset = count; if ( offset + size > count ) size = count - offset; ! ! /* if the base object is another buffer, then "deref" it, ! * except if the base of the other buffer is NULL ! */ ! if ( PyBuffer_Check(base) && (((PyBufferObject *)base)->b_base) ) base = ((PyBufferObject *)base)->b_base; ! return _PyBuffer_FromMemory(base, (char *)p + offset, size, readonly); }

2 2

Re: [Python-checkins] CVS: python/dist/src/Lib __phello__.foo.py,NONE,1.1
by Michael Hudson Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

Guido van Rossum <gvanrossum(a)users.sourceforge.net> writes: > Update of /cvsroot/python/python/dist/src/Lib > In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv9628/Lib > > Added Files: > __phello__.foo.py $ cvs up && ./configure --prefix=$HOME && make install ... $ ls ~/lib/python2.2/__phello__.foo.py /home/crew/mwh/lib/python2.2/__phello__.foo.py ...? Shouldn't it at least be in /home/crew/mwh/lib/python2.2/test ? Cheers, M.

2 1

RE: [Python-Dev] Has socketmodule compilation broken for anyone e lse lately?
by Mark.Favas＠csiro.au Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

Bug now logged on SourceForge... Not the first time that checkins to socketmodule have caused compilation errors (but not on Linux <wink>). Mark >>>>> "MF" == Mark Favas <Mark.Favas(a)csiro.au> writes: MF> For the last couple of days, socketmodule hasn't compiled for MF> me on Tru64 Unix. If I'm the only one seeing this, I'll file a MF> bug report on sf... I just did a fresh cvs update, "make test" on Linux and everything works for me. I'm about to create the 2.2b1 release branch, so unless the patch is in my inbox when I wake up about 8 hours from now, it probably won't make it into 2.2b1. -Barry

2 1

Python 2.2b1 - release branch created
by barry＠zope.com Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

I've created the Python 2.2b1 release branch. The CVS tag is `r22b1-branch'. There's also a tag `r22b1-fork' -- that's the point on the trunk where the branch forks off. So far the only change in the branch is the version number. As usual, no one except Guido and myself (or our authorized bots) should make checkins to the branch. Checkins to the trunk are still okay, but generally will /not/ be merged into the release branch unless you notify us (a comment in the checkin message would suffice). I'll be cutting the release tomorrow morning local time (Friday October 19). After the release is done, the branch will be merged back into the trunk. Please note too that with the release of 2.2 beta 1, there is now a feature freeze on the trunk until after the 2.2 final release is made. According to PEP 251, this is currently scheduled for 19-Dec-2001. Those of you with commit privileges, please respect the feature freeze! You can use SourceForge to archive any feature requests or feature patches for 2.3. If you're unsure whether a change you want to make is a feature or a bug fix, contact us first. Enjoy, -Barry

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] python2.1.1 SEGV in GC on Solaris 2.7
by Anthony Baxter Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

Ok, after more than 16 hours of running, I can say that I'm pretty confident the crash-in-realloc is gone. However, I'm still seeing crashes (although much much less frequent) inside the GC. Same bat time, same bat channel, same bat line-of-code. I'm thinking I'll have to try the printf approach :-/ I might wait until next week, because our local directors will be back on line then, and it will be easier to knock servers in and out of service. Anthony

1 0

Re: [Python-checkins] CVS: python/dist/src/Lib/test test_os.py,1.6,1.7
by Fredrik Lundh Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

guido wrote: > But they also have attributes like st_mtime or tm_year. umm. do we really need the "st_" and "tm_" prefixes? </F>

5 6

CVS question: checking in old doc update
by Greg Ward Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

How embarassing. I've just discovered that I added a couple pages of text to one of the Distutils docs a year ago, and then never checked it in. Since then, various people have made various changes, and simply "cvs up"'ing produced a horrible mess. For posterity, I'd like to check in my changes relative to the last revision I worked on. That is, sometime in October 2000, I made revision 1.26 to Doc/dist/dist.tex, and on October 29th (according to my own backups), I added a bunch of text and made some other changes. So I *think* I'd like to make a "mini-branch" for this one file, where I check in my year-old changes relative to revision 1.26. I tried this: cvs ci -r1.26 dist.tex but CVS said cvs server: Up-to-date check failed for `dist.tex' So I said, "Fine, I'll be explicit about working relative to rev 1.26": mv dist.tex dist.tex-hacked cvs up -r 1.26 dist.tex mv dist.tex-hacked dist.tex cvs ci dist.tex And this time CVS said: cvs server: sticky tag `1.26' for file `dist.tex' is not a branch Sigh. Do I have to explicitly create a branch for this, as in cvs tag -r 1.26 -b last-gpw-revision ? If that's the only thing to do, is it OK for me to do this? It's only one file. Is that a good name for the branch? Greg -- Greg Ward - just another /P(erl|ython)/ hacker gward(a)python.net http://starship.python.net/~gward/ Reality is for people who can't handle science fiction.

3 2

Python 2.2 beta 1 documentation
by Fred L. Drake, Jr. Oct. 18, 2001

Oct. 18, 2001

The Python 2.2 beta 1 documentation is now available in the usual places. The HTML packages are there as always, and one new package: a version for the iSilo document reader for PalmOS devices (see www.iSilo.com). It has problems still, but as long as you navigate by hyperlinks it should work just fine. ;-) If people are interested in this format I can work on solving the problems with it, so please let me know if you think you'll be interested in actually using docs in this format. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation

1 0

2.1.1 maintenance branch
by Martin von Loewis Oct. 18, 2001

Oct. 18, 2001

How should the 2.1 branch be used? Is it acceptable to propagate patches from the mainline to that branch? Is there somebody that needs to review changes made to the branch? Specific case in question: Anthony Baxter found Zope crashing, and apparently ceval.c 2.277 fixes that crash. I would now like to forward this patch to the 2.1 branch. Regards, Martin

7 12