Mailman 3 April 2003 - Python-Dev

Weekly Python Bug/Patch Summary
by Skip Montanaro April 27, 2003

April 27, 2003

Bug/Patch Summary ----------------- 407 open / 3569 total bugs (+12) 129 open / 2106 total patches (+1) New Bugs -------- socketmodule doesn't compile on strict POSIX systems (2003-04-20) http://python.org/sf/724588 email/quopriMIME.py exception on int (lstrip) (2003-04-20) http://python.org/sf/724621 Minor /Tools/Scripts/crlf.py bugs (2003-04-20) http://python.org/sf/724767 Possible OSX module location bug (2003-04-21) http://python.org/sf/725026 SRE bug with capturing groups in … [View More]

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] Accepted PEPs?
by David Goodger April 27, 2003

April 27, 2003

[Phillip J. Eby] >>> I was going over the PEP index this morning, and I noticed a large >>> number of PEPs listed under the "open" list that would seem to me >>> to be "accepted", if not "done" in some cases, according to the >>> criteria described by the headings. (Specifically, PEPs 218, 237, >>> 273, 282, 283, 301, 302, 305, and 307.) Wearing my PEP Editor hat, I recently performed a similar exercise. I even got Guido's OK on suggested … [View More]changes to Final and Approved on those specific PEPs (all but 305, which I'd missed). On further reflection however, I'm not sure that we should go forward without at least giving the authors notice, and a chance to make changes (especially, changes that bring PEPs in line with current reality). PEP 1 states: Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send it back to the author(s) for revision. Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by the BDFL, the status will be changed to "Final". It's unclear whether the BDFL should even be able to review a PEP without the author's review request (I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that it's OK, but it's not clear from the wording). So as not to upset PEP authors unnecessarily ;-), I think we ought to follow the formal process. It's not too onerous; a simple note (stating "PEP X is ready for review") to <peps(a)python.org> would be sufficient: I'll send out reminders. > It's not a big deal, but it's very hard to see from the list which > things are "in progress", "need revisions", or are "unlikely to make > it". So since I already took the trouble to work out the answers for > myself, I thought I'd offer to help the next person who came along. > :) Everyone needs a good kick in the pants once in a while, thanks. >>> Others under "open" I would guess are in fact "rejected", notably >>> 294 (the patch was closed rejected) [Guido] >> Correct -- this *issue* is still open, but the solution from the >> PEP is rejected. So is PEP 294 itself rejected? Or should we await a formal review request (as per the above)? [Phillip] >>> Should I submit a patch for PEP 0? Don't bother; I'll update it as required. -- David Goodger <http://starship.python.net/~goodger> Python Enhancement Proposal (PEP) Editor <http://www.python.org/peps/> (Please cc: all PEP correspondence to <peps(a)python.org>.) [View Less]

3 2

test_s?re merge
by Skip Montanaro April 27, 2003

April 27, 2003

For those of you who don't read python-checkins, the merge of test_re.py and test_sre.py has been completed and test_sre.py is no longer in the repository. Future test cases should be added to test_re.py, even if it's a test specifically of Fredrik's sre module. The sre.Scanner object is the only thing imported directly from sre, and only because it is not sucked in by re.py. I may also assimilate Tim's re_tests.py at some point, but probably not real soon, so if someone feels like tackling … [View More]

2 1

Democracy
by Guido van Rossum April 27, 2003

April 27, 2003

I read this interview in ACM's *Ubiquity* which reminded me of the Python developer community. Seems we are doing some things right. Maybe we can learn from it in cases where we aren't. http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/interviews/b_manville_1.html --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

8 10

test_ossaudiodev hanging again
by Jeremy Hylton April 27, 2003

April 27, 2003

I thought I'd report that test_ossaudiodev is back to hanging on my RH 7.2 box. It's been a while since I ran the test suite with the audio resource enabled, so I don't know when it started to hang. Jeremy

5 4

When is it okay to ``cvs remove``?
by Brett Cannon April 27, 2003

April 27, 2003

I am rewriting test_urllib.py from scratch since the current version is very lacking (and out of date; the thing tests against UserDict from odd reason). Since I have written it from scratch I figure doing a ``cvs remove`` on the current test_urllib.py and then adding my new version to get a fresh version numbering? Also, my rewrite is not finished (have some more things I want to test), but what I have so far passes and seems good. Should I bother to check in what I have so far to have it … [View More]

8 11

Reminder to PEP authors
by David Goodger April 26, 2003

April 26, 2003

There are several PEPs with "Draft" status which are ripe for review. PEP 1 states: Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send it back to the author(s) for revision. Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by … [View More]

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] Accepted PEPs?
by Phillip J. Eby April 26, 2003

April 26, 2003

At 12:11 PM 4/26/03 -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I was going over the PEP index this morning, and I noticed a large number > > of PEPs listed under the "open" list that would seem to me to be > > "accepted", if not "done" in some cases, according to the criteria > > described by the headings. (Specifically, PEPs 218, 237, 273, 282, 283, > > 301, 302, 305, and 307.) > >Some of those (e.g. 237) have multiple stages and ought to remain open >until the … [View More]

1 0

Accepted PEPs?
by Phillip J. Eby April 26, 2003

April 26, 2003

I was going over the PEP index this morning, and I noticed a large number of PEPs listed under the "open" list that would seem to me to be "accepted", if not "done" in some cases, according to the criteria described by the headings. (Specifically, PEPs 218, 237, 273, 282, 283, 301, 302, 305, and 307.) Others under "open" I would guess are in fact "rejected", notably 294 (the patch was closed rejected) and 313 (presumably tongue-in-cheek). Should I submit a patch for PEP 0?

2 1

test_logging hangs on Solaris 8 (and 9)
by Mark Favas April 26, 2003

April 26, 2003

[Skip] Failed (completed with one or more failures or errors) or hung? Sorry - hung, couldn't ^C it, had to ^Z and "kill %1" the "make test" process. Mark Favas

1 0