Mailman 3 September 2010 - Python-Dev

Re: [Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly
by "Martin v. Löwis" Sept. 27, 2010

Sept. 27, 2010

Am 27.09.2010 22:17, schrieb P.J. Eby: > At 12:36 PM 9/27/2010 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: >> All fixed. > > Nope. Indeed. The immediate problem was that genpepindex tried to read pep-0000, and didn't like it. I worked around that in r85041, so that genpepindex now skips over pep-0000.txt. However, if it's really important that the fields in a PEP are in a certain order (why is that important?), then I guess PEP 0 should really comply with its own specification :-) Regards, Martin

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] Some changes to logging for 3.2
by Chris Withers Sept. 27, 2010

Sept. 27, 2010

On 24/09/2010 12:06, Vinay Sajip wrote: >> http://plumberjack.blogspot.com/2010/09/improved-queuehandler-queuelistener… >>> >> >> Cool, how can I use it in Python 2.6? :-) > > 1. Copy the top part (imports, QueueHandler and QueueListener classes) from the > Gist linked to in the article - http://gist.github.com/591699 - into a utility > module you can use again and again. Thanks! Although my comment was a light hearted dig from my point of view that the … [View More]

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] Python wiki
by Paul Boddie Sept. 27, 2010

Sept. 27, 2010

Hello, I've been following this thread all week at work, but I thought it might be time to respond to the different remarks in a single response, given that I am involved in editing and maintaining the Wiki on python.org, and I had a strong enough opinion about such things to give a talk about it at EuroPython that some of you attended: http://wiki.europython.eu/Talks/Web_Collaboration_And_Python/Talk Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <… [View More]martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > > There actually is an admin team, and they actually do set ACLs. > > Who are they? > > > IIUC, this is primarily for spam protection, though. > > So would they object against additions to the team? The administrators are generally the people on the following page: http://wiki.python.org/moin/AdminGroup Someone may have special powers, particularly if they have shell access to the machine running the Wiki, but there's no "secret brotherhood". In fact, I recall advocating that Carl Trachte get admin powers given his continuing high-quality contributions, so we can say that people aren't denying others administrative privileges if that person is clearly doing good work and would benefit from being able to have those privileges. [Later on...] Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Michael Foord > > <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > > Wiki maintenance is discussed, along with other python.org maintenance > > topics, on the pydotorg-www mailing list: > > > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www > > Which has hidden its membership (even to members). Does it really need > to appear that secretive? At least the message archive is open and has > all the usual suspects. As we're now seeing, people don't feel that it's acceptable to publish the subscribers list, and I think that it's a complete distraction to seek to do so, anyway. It's not as if everyone on that list has special privileges and is preventing newcomers from joining it. > > More wiki and website maintainers needed! > > Maybe a prominent wiki page with info about how to join the list and > the responsibilities / needs would help? > > Also, I gotta say that the wiki login process is awkward. MoinMoin supports OpenID, although I did find and report issues with Moin 1.9 in this regard. Something on my now-huge list of things to do is to make Moin authentication better, especially where there might be a choice of authentication methods. Georg Brandl wrote: > Am 23.09.2010 22:25, schrieb anatoly techtonik: > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: > >> I certainly agree with that. So, how can we solve those problems? > >> Radomir has shell access now so perhaps we can ask him to make the > >> Python wiki theme more visually appealing. What roadblocks do people > >> encounter when they want to help garden or reorganize the wiki? > > > > First of all Wiki is outdated. Correct me, but python.org specific > > customizations are not modules, but patches that makes it hard to > > update the Wiki to latest version or add new customizations. > > That's why we have a Moin core developer on the team. ISTM that Moin 1.x > is notoriously hard to extend -- once you go beyond plugins adding new wiki > macros -- which is part of what the team wants to fix in 2.x. Although I understand the sentiments about "specific customizations", python.org should only have its theme as something that isn't a generic extension to MoinMoin, and that theme should be actively maintained. When python.org switched its architecture a while ago, the special theme presumably came with the deal, but it's been so out of date for so long that I switched to one of the standard themes years ago. Fortunately, Radomir's EuroPython theme is actively maintained, works with recent MoinMoin releases, looks a lot better than the old theme, and is used elsewhere. As for Moin 1.x being "notoriously hard to extend" beyond macros, you can get a long way with macros and actions, although I agree that sometimes it's possible to hit architectural constraints. > > Second - ugly Creole syntax. I am for inter-cooperation between wikis, > > and I understand that for non-developer communities [] symbols > > imposing problems, but as an open source developer I am addicted to > > Trac and Google Code syntax and never had problems with those. > > This isn't Creole syntax, it's Moin wiki syntax. And face it, it's not > going to change. It's also not so much different from Trac wiki syntax. I never agreed with this complaint, anyway. When discussing this previously with Anatoly, I went as far as to ask on #moin where Radomir actually posted a good summary of the syntax differences: http://wiki.python.org/moin/SiteImprovements/WikiSyntaxComparison I invite anyone to justify claims that the old style (which Trac adopted) was better. Complaints about double bracketing are specious: MediaWiki has different bracketing levels and it's really confusing. > > Fourth. GPL license. I personally don't have interest to waste my time > > for the code I won't be able to use in some projects, unless the > > project is either exceptional (Mercurial) or interesting. To make > > python.org MoinMoin interesting - there should be an inviting > > entrypoint (see point three above) and the list of tasks to choose > > form. Something that is better than > > http://wiki.python.org/moin/SiteImprovements > > Yes, that needs to be updated indeed. On the matter of the GPL, Anatoly and I more or less agreed to disagree when we last discussed the Web site. On the matter of site improvements and the page which attempts to document ideas, we could move such things to a tracker (where they will probably get as much attention as the Web site bugs get right now), or we could actually prune a lot of the issues by addressing them with fixes that are readily available (applying to a lot of "xyz doesn't work" complaints). Getting people to accept that things aren't going to change for the sake of it (like the Wiki syntax) is more difficult, but at some point such discussions just have to end. anatoly techtonik wrote: > That's a dead way. Wiki should be open for everyone. Just need more > people subscribed to revert unwelcome changes. That is to make > timeline more visible, because on wiki.python.org it is _not_ > intuitive. It may worth to see how Mercurial wiki is managed - I've > picked up the bookmarks monitoring habit from it. Maybe a design > change will help, but again - there is no entrypoint for people with > design skills to start. The Wiki is generally "open for everyone", but as I noted in my talk you often get people who decide that their opinion is worth more than the cumulative knowledge and experience of everyone who has been maintaining a particular resource [1]. You also have to prevent spamming and vandalism which is quite well taken care of with the TextCha support, although I accept that mechanisms should be in place to promote users to higher levels of privilege after a while - another little project on my long "to do" list - so that they don't have to answer editing questions. As for the Mercurial Wiki, I have some involvement with that, and I don't see how it is significantly differently managed. I've also proposed various changes to that Wiki including a theme that could be deployed straight away, but I suspect that it's more a case of people being too busy to take me up on any such offer than a malicious cabal denying me the chance to improve a particular Internet resource. Some final notes on the matter of Wiki editing: The Wiki has for a long time been a product of many co-existing contributions that occasionally overlap with each other and are tied together as respectfully and gently as possible. Although there is a temptation to overhaul much of the content, respect for the existing structure and content has mostly restrained any cleaning-up attempts. I wouldn't mind a bit of reorganisation, but that brings us to the role of the Wiki. If other resources are meant to provide the bulk of what people consider the "important" content, then the Wiki will always have to be shaped to respect that; if the Wiki is to hold much of that content, then issues such as navigability become even more critical. But what is certain is that tucking the Wiki away in some obscure location (I had to request that a link to it be re-added to the front page of python.org recently, as I recall) and treating it like a playpen will only encourage casual edits with little concern for the resulting quality. Anyone now on the verge of concluding that this is purely a Wiki phenomenon should consult my "common myths" slide: http://wiki.europython.eu/Talks/Web_Collaboration_And_Python/Talk#Some_Comm… High-quality documentation isn't something you get for nothing, nor is it a property of some magic solution or tool: there's always some hard work involved for human beings. Paul [1] One "happy" memory of mine involves someone who decided that their style and terminology edits were so important that they felt the need to tell me "don't modify it again" when it was they who were doing the modifying. [View Less]

8 11

Re: [Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly
by P.J. Eby Sept. 26, 2010

Sept. 26, 2010

Done. The other amendments were never actually made, so I just reverted the Python 3 bit after moving it to the new PEP. I'll make the changes to 3333 instead as soon as I have another time slot free. At 01:56 PM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >Since you have commit privileges, just do it. The PEP editor position >mostly exists to assure non-committers are not prevented from >authoring PEPs. > >Please do add a prominent note at the top of PEP 333 pointing to PEP &… [View More]

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] [Web-SIG] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly
by P.J. Eby Sept. 26, 2010

Sept. 26, 2010

At 01:44 PM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry(a)python.org> wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2010, at 1:33 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: > > > >> At 08:20 AM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >>> I'm happy approving Final status for the > >>> *original* PEP 333 and I'm happy to approve a new PEP which includes > >>> PJE's corrections. > >> > >> Can we make it PEP … [View More]

3 2

Re: [Python-Dev] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly
by P.J. Eby Sept. 26, 2010

Sept. 26, 2010

At 09:22 PM 9/25/2010 -0400, Jesse Noller wrote: >It seems like it will end up >different enough to be a different specification, closely related to >the original, but different enough to trip up all the people >maintaining current WSGI servers and apps. The only actual *change* to the spec is mandating the use of the 'bytes' type or equivalent for HTTP bodies when using Python 3. Seriously, that's *it*. Everything else that's (planned to be) added is either 100% truly just … [View More]

6 7

PyObject_GC_UnTrack() no longer reliable in 2.7?
by Tim Peters Sept. 26, 2010

Sept. 26, 2010

Looks like 2.7 changes introduced to exempt dicts and tuples from cyclic gc if they obviously can't be in cycles has some unintended consequences. Specifically, if an extension module calls PyObject_GC_UnTrack() on a dict it _does not want tracked_, Python can start tracking the dict again. I assume this is unintended because (a) the docs weren't changed to warn about this; and, (b) it's wrong ;-) There are two main reasons an extension module may have been calling PyObject_GC_UnTrack(): 1. … [View More]

6 8

Re: [Python-Dev] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly
by P.J. Eby Sept. 26, 2010

Sept. 26, 2010

At 07:15 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >Don't see this as a new spec. See it as a procedural issue. As a procedural issue, PEP 333 is an Informational PEP, in "Draft" status, which I'd like to make Final after these amendments. See http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Amendments_1.0, which Graham created in 2007, stating: """This page is intended to collect any ideas related to amendments to the original WSGI 1.0 so that it can be marked as 'Final'.""" IOW, there is no intention to … [View More]treat the PEP as "mutable" going forward; this is just cleanup so we can mark it Final. After that, it's an ex-parrot. >Clarifications of ambiguous/unspecified behavior can possibly rule as >non-conforming implementations that used to get the benefit of the >doubt. Best-practice recommendations also have the effect of changing >(perceived) compliance. I understand the general principle, but with respect to these *specific* changes, any perceived-compliance arguments that were going to happen, already happened years ago. The changes are merely to officially document the way those arguments already turned out, so the PEP can become Final. Specifically, the changes all fall into one of three categories: 1. Textual clarification (SERVER_PORT is not an int, iteration can stop before all output is consumed) 2. Practical issues with wsgi.input arising from the fact that real-world programs needed its behavior to be more "file-like" than the specification required... and which essentially forced servers that were not using socket.makefile() to make their emulations work like that, anyway (or else be rejected by users). 3. Clarification of behavior that would break HTTP compliance (apps or servers sending more than Content-Length bytes) and is therefore *already a bug* in any implementation that does it. Since in all three categories any implementation that did not end up following the recommendations on its own is going to have been considered buggy by its users (regardless of its formal "compliance"), and because the changes do not actually declare the buggy behaviors in categories 2 and 3 to be non-compliant, I do not see how any of these changes can produce the type of problems you're worried about here. Certainly, if I thought such problems were possible, I wouldn't have accepted these amendments. Likewise, if I thought that changes would continue to be made to the PEP past this point, the goal wouldn't be getting it to Final status. [View Less]

1 0

Re: [Python-Dev] WSGI is now Python 3-friendly
by P.J. Eby Sept. 26, 2010

Sept. 26, 2010

At 02:07 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but >I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it >is just a set of textual corrections on the existing PEP 333. With the exception of the bytes change, I ruled out accepting any proposed amendments that would actually alter the protocol. The amendments are all either textual clarifications, clarifications of ambiguous/unspecified areas,… [View More]

2 1

Summary of Python tracker Issues
by Python tracker Sept. 26, 2010

Sept. 26, 2010

ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2010-09-17 - 2010-09-24) Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/ To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue. Do NOT respond to this message. Issues stats: open 2533 (+42) closed 19189 (+57) total 21722 (+53) Open issues with patches: 1061 Issues opened (42) ================== #1763: Winpath module - easy access to Windows directories like My Do http://bugs.python.org/issue1763 reopened by r.david.murray #6627: threading.local()… [View More]

7 15