It has been a while since I posted a copy of PEP 1 to the mailing
lists and newsgroups. I've recently done some updating of a few
sections, so in the interest of gaining wider community participation
in the Python development process, I'm posting the latest revision of
PEP 1 here. A version of the PEP is always available on-line at
-------------------- snip snip --------------------
Title: PEP Purpose and Guidelines
Version: $Revision: 1.36 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2002/07/29 18:34:59 $
Author: Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton
Post-History: 21-Mar-2001, 29-Jul-2002
What is a PEP?
PEP stands for Python Enhancement Proposal. A PEP is a design
document providing information to the Python community, or
describing a new feature for Python. The PEP should provide a
concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for
We intend PEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new
features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for
documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python. The
PEP author is responsible for building consensus within the
community and documenting dissenting opinions.
Because the PEPs are maintained as plain text files under CVS
control, their revision history is the historical record of the
Kinds of PEPs
There are two kinds of PEPs. A standards track PEP describes a
new feature or implementation for Python. An informational PEP
describes a Python design issue, or provides general guidelines or
information to the Python community, but does not propose a new
feature. Informational PEPs do not necessarily represent a Python
community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors
are free to ignore informational PEPs or follow their advice.
PEP Work Flow
The PEP editor, Barry Warsaw <peps(a)python.org>, assigns numbers
for each PEP and changes its status.
The PEP process begins with a new idea for Python. It is highly
recommended that a single PEP contain a single key proposal or new
idea. The more focussed the PEP, the more successfully it tends
to be. The PEP editor reserves the right to reject PEP proposals
if they appear too unfocussed or too broad. If in doubt, split
your PEP into several well-focussed ones.
Each PEP must have a champion -- someone who writes the PEP using
the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in
the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus
around the idea. The PEP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first
attempt to ascertain whether the idea is PEP-able. Small
enhancements or patches often don't need a PEP and can be injected
into the Python development work flow with a patch submission to
the SourceForge patch manager or feature request tracker.
The PEP champion then emails the PEP editor <peps(a)python.org> with
a proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the PEP.
This draft must be written in PEP style as described below.
If the PEP editor approves, he will assign the PEP a number, label
it as standards track or informational, give it status 'draft',
and create and check-in the initial draft of the PEP. The PEP
editor will not unreasonably deny a PEP. Reasons for denying PEP
status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound,
not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards
compatibility, or not in keeping with the Python philosophy. The
BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for Life, Guido van Rossum) can be
consulted during the approval phase, and is the final arbitrator
of the draft's PEP-ability.
If a pre-PEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-PEP
to the comp.lang.python newsgroup (a.k.a. python-list(a)python.org
mailing list) to help flesh it out, gain feedback and consensus
from the community at large, and improve the PEP for
The author of the PEP is then responsible for posting the PEP to
the community forums, and marshaling community support for it. As
updates are necessary, the PEP author can check in new versions if
they have CVS commit permissions, or can email new PEP versions to
the PEP editor for committing.
Standards track PEPs consists of two parts, a design document and
a reference implementation. The PEP should be reviewed and
accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a
reference implementation will aid people in studying the PEP.
Standards Track PEPs must include an implementation - in the form
of code, patch, or URL to same - before it can be considered
PEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a
PEP before submitting it for review. A PEP that has not been
discussed on python-list(a)python.org and/or python-dev(a)python.org
will not be accepted. However, wherever possible, long open-ended
discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies
to keep the discussions efficient include, setting up a separate
SIG mailing list for the topic, having the PEP author accept
private comments in the early design phases, etc. PEP authors
should use their discretion here.
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.'
A PEP can also be assigned status `Deferred.' The PEP author or
editor can assign the PEP this status when no progress is being
made on the PEP. Once a PEP is deferred, the PEP editor can
re-assign it to draft status.
A PEP can also be `Rejected'. Perhaps after all is said and done
it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of
PEPs can also be replaced by a different PEP, rendering the
original obsolete. This is intended for Informational PEPs, where
version 2 of an API can replace version 1.
PEP work flow is as follows:
Draft -> Accepted -> Final -> Replaced
Some informational PEPs may also have a status of `Active' if they
are never meant to be completed. E.g. PEP 1.
What belongs in a successful PEP?
Each PEP should have the following parts:
1. Preamble -- RFC822 style headers containing meta-data about the
PEP, including the PEP number, a short descriptive title
(limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and
optionally the contact info for each author, etc.
2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical
issue being addressed.
3. Copyright/public domain -- Each PEP must either be explicitly
labelled as placed in the public domain (see this PEP as an
example) or licensed under the Open Publication License.
4. Specification -- The technical specification should describe
the syntax and semantics of any new language feature. The
specification should be detailed enough to allow competing,
interoperable implementations for any of the current Python
platforms (CPython, JPython, Python .NET).
5. Motivation -- The motivation is critical for PEPs that want to
change the Python language. It should clearly explain why the
existing language specification is inadequate to address the
problem that the PEP solves. PEP submissions without
sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
6. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by
describing what motivated the design and why particular design
decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that
were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is
supported in other languages.
The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the
community and discuss important objections or concerns raised
7. Backwards Compatibility -- All PEPs that introduce backwards
incompatibilities must include a section describing these
incompatibilities and their severity. The PEP must explain how
the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. PEP
submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility
treatise may be rejected outright.
8. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must
be completed before any PEP is given status 'Final,' but it
need not be completed before the PEP is accepted. It is better
to finish the specification and rationale first and reach
consensus on it before writing code.
The final implementation must include test code and
documentation appropriate for either the Python language
reference or the standard library reference.
PEPs are written in plain ASCII text, and should adhere to a
rigid style. There is a Python script that parses this style and
converts the plain text PEP to HTML for viewing on the web.
PEP 9 contains a boilerplate template you can use to get
started writing your PEP.
Each PEP must begin with an RFC822 style header preamble. The
headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with
`*' are optional and are described below. All other headers are
PEP: <pep number>
Title: <pep title>
Version: <cvs version string>
Last-Modified: <cvs date string>
Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
* Discussions-To: <email address>
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Final | Replaced>
Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
* Requires: <pep numbers>
Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
* Python-Version: <version number>
Post-History: <dates of postings to python-list and python-dev>
* Replaces: <pep number>
* Replaced-By: <pep number>
The Author: header lists the names and optionally, the email
addresses of all the authors/owners of the PEP. The format of the
author entry should be
address(a)dom.ain (Random J. User)
if the email address is included, and just
Random J. User
if the address is not given. If there are multiple authors, each
should be on a separate line following RFC 822 continuation line
conventions. Note that personal email addresses in PEPs will be
obscured as a defense against spam harvesters.
Standards track PEPs must have a Python-Version: header which
indicates the version of Python that the feature will be released
with. Informational PEPs do not need a Python-Version: header.
While a PEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial
Draft phase), a Discussions-To: header will indicate the mailing
list or URL where the PEP is being discussed. No Discussions-To:
header is necessary if the PEP is being discussed privately with
the author, or on the python-list or python-dev email mailing
lists. Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To: header
will not be obscured.
Created: records the date that the PEP was assigned a number,
while Post-History: is used to record the dates of when new
versions of the PEP are posted to python-list and/or python-dev.
Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g. 14-Aug-2001.
PEPs may have a Requires: header, indicating the PEP numbers that
this PEP depends on.
PEPs may also have a Replaced-By: header indicating that a PEP has
been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the
number of the PEP that replaces the current document. The newer
PEP must have a Replaces: header containing the number of the PEP
that it rendered obsolete.
PEP Formatting Requirements
PEP headings must begin in column zero and the initial letter of
each word must be capitalized as in book titles. Acronyms should
be in all capitals. The body of each section must be indented 4
spaces. Code samples inside body sections should be indented a
further 4 spaces, and other indentation can be used as required to
make the text readable. You must use two blank lines between the
last line of a section's body and the next section heading.
You must adhere to the Emacs convention of adding two spaces at
the end of every sentence. You should fill your paragraphs to
column 70, but under no circumstances should your lines extend
past column 79. If your code samples spill over column 79, you
should rewrite them.
Tab characters must never appear in the document at all. A PEP
should include the standard Emacs stanza included by example at
the bottom of this PEP.
A PEP must contain a Copyright section, and it is strongly
recommended to put the PEP in the public domain.
When referencing an external web page in the body of a PEP, you
should include the title of the page in the text, with a
footnote reference to the URL. Do not include the URL in the body
text of the PEP. E.g.
Refer to the Python Language web site  for more details.
When referring to another PEP, include the PEP number in the body
text, such as "PEP 1". The title may optionally appear. Add a
footnote reference that includes the PEP's title and author. It
may optionally include the explicit URL on a separate line, but
only in the References section. Note that the pep2html.py script
will calculate URLs automatically, e.g.:
Refer to PEP 1  for more information about PEP style
 PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton
If you decide to provide an explicit URL for a PEP, please use
this as the URL template:
PEP numbers in URLs must be padded with zeros from the left, so as
to be exactly 4 characters wide, however PEP numbers in text are
Reporting PEP Bugs, or Submitting PEP Updates
How you report a bug, or submit a PEP update depends on several
factors, such as the maturity of the PEP, the preferences of the
PEP author, and the nature of your comments. For the early draft
stages of the PEP, it's probably best to send your comments and
changes directly to the PEP author. For more mature, or finished
PEPs you may want to submit corrections to the SourceForge bug
manager or better yet, the SourceForge patch manager so that
your changes don't get lost. If the PEP author is a SF developer,
assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise assign it to the PEP
When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first
with the PEP author and/or PEP editor.
PEP authors who are also SF committers, can update the PEPs
themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.
Remember to also push the formatted PEP text out to the web by
doing the following:
% python pep2html.py -i NUM
where NUM is the number of the PEP you want to push out. See
% python pep2html.py --help
Transferring PEP Ownership
It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of PEPs to
a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original
author as a co-author of the transferred PEP, but that's really up
to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is
because the original author no longer has the time or interest in
updating it or following through with the PEP process, or has
fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not
responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is
because you don't agree with the direction of the PEP. We try to
build consensus around a PEP, but if that's not possible, you can
always submit a competing PEP.
If you are interested assuming ownership of a PEP, send a message
asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the
PEP editor <peps(a)python.org>. If the original author doesn't
respond to email in a timely manner, the PEP editor will make a
unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can be
References and Footnotes
 This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands
for retrieving older revisions. For those without direct access
to the CVS tree, you can browse the current and past PEP revisions
via the SourceForge web site at
 The script referred to here is pep2html.py, which lives in
the same directory in the CVS tree as the PEPs themselves.
Try "pep2html.py --help" for details.
The URL for viewing PEPs on the web is
 PEP 9, Sample PEP Template
This document has been placed in the public domain.
webmaster has already heard from 4 people who cannot install it.
I sent them to the bug tracker or to python-list but they seem
not to have gone either place. Is there some guide I should be
sending them to, 'how to debug installation problems'?
On Twitter, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
"The decision making process on Python-dev is an anti-pattern,
governed by anecdotal data and ambiguity over what problem is solved."
About "anecdotal data", I would like to discuss the Python startup time.
== Python 3.7 compared to 2.7 ==
First of all, on speed.python.org, we have:
* Python 2.7: 6.4 ms with site, 3.0 ms without site (-S)
* master (3.7): 14.5 ms with site, 8.4 ms without site (-S)
Python 3.7 startup time is 2.3x slower with site (default mode), or
2.8x slower without site (-S command line option).
(I will skip Python 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 which are much worse than Python 3.7...)
So if an user complained about Python 2.7 startup time: be prepared
for a 2x - 3x more angry user when "forced" to upgrade to Python 3!
== Mercurial vs Git, Python vs C, startup time ==
Startup time matters a lot for Mercurial since Mercurial is compared
to Git. Git and Mercurial have similar features, but Git is written in
C whereas Mercurial is written in Python. Quick benchmark on the
* hg version: 44.6 ms +- 0.2 ms
* git --version: 974 us +- 7 us
Mercurial startup time is already 45.8x slower than Git whereas tested
Mercurial runs on Python 2.7.12. Now try to sell Python 3 to Mercurial
developers, with a startup time 2x - 3x slower...
I tested Mecurial 3.7.3 and Git 2.7.4 on Ubuntu 16.04.1 using "python3
-m perf command -- ...".
== CPython core developers don't care? no, they do care ==
Christian Heimes, Naoki INADA, Serhiy Storchaka, Yury Selivanov, me
(Victor Stinner) and other core developers made multiple changes last
years to reduce the number of imports at startup, optimize impotlib,
IHMO all these core developers are well aware of the competition of
programming languages, and honesty Python startup time isn't "good".
So let's compare it to other programming languages similar to Python.
== PHP, Ruby, Perl ==
I measured the startup time of other programming languages which are
similar to Python, still on the speed.python.org server using "python3
-m perf command -- ...":
* perl -e ' ': 1.18 ms +- 0.01 ms
* php -r ' ': 8.57 ms +- 0.05 ms
* ruby -e ' ': 32.8 ms +- 0.1 ms
Wow, Perl is quite good! PHP seems as good as Python 2 (but Python 3
is worse). Ruby startup time seems less optimized than other
* perl 5, version 22, subversion 1 (v5.22.1)
* PHP 7.0.18-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 (cli) ( NTS )
* ruby 2.3.1p112 (2016-04-26) [x86_64-linux-gnu]
== Quick Google search ==
I also searched for "python startup time" and "python slow startup
time" on Google and found many articles. Some examples:
"Reducing the Python startup time"
=> "The python startup time always nagged me (17-30ms) and I just
searched again for a way to reduce it, when I found this: The
Python-Launcher caches GTK imports and forks new processes to reduce
the startup time of python GUI programs."
=> "Wow, Python startup time is worse than I thought."
"How to speed up python starting up and/or reduce file search while
=> "The first time I log to the system and start one command it takes
6 seconds just to show a few line of help. If I immediately issue the
same command again it takes 0.1s. After a couple of minutes it gets
back to 6s. (proof of short-lived cache)"
"How does one optimise the startup of a Python script/program?"
=> "I wrote a Python program that would be used very often (imagine
'cd' or 'ls') for very short runtimes, how would I make it start up as
fast as possible?"
"Python Interpreter Startup time"
"Python is very slow to start on Windows 7"
=> "Python takes 17 times longer to load on my Windows 7 machine than
Ubuntu 14.04 running on a VM"
=> "returns in 0.614s on Windows and 0.036s on Linux"
"How to make a fast command line tool in Python" (old article Python 2.5.2)
=> "(...) some techniques Bazaar uses to start quickly, such as lazy imports."
So please continue efforts for make Python startup even faster to beat
all other programming languages, and finally convince Mercurial to
As some people here know I've been working off and on for a while to
improve CPython's support of Cygwin. I'm motivated in part by a need
to have software working on Python 3.x on Cygwin for the foreseeable
future, preferably with minimal graft. (As an incidental side-effect
Python's test suite--especially of system-level functionality--serves
as an interesting test suite for Cygwin itself too.)
This is partly what motivated PEP 539 , although that PEP had the
advantage of benefiting other POSIX-compatible platforms as well (and
in fact was fixing an aspect of CPython that made it unfriendly to
supporting other platforms).
As far as I can tell, the first commit to Python to add any kind of
support for Cygwin was made by Guido (committing a contributed patch)
back in 1999 . Since then, bits and pieces have been added for
Cygwin's benefit over time, with varying degrees of impact in terms of
#ifdefs and the like (for the most part Cygwin does not require *much*
in the way of special support, but it does have some differences from
a "normal" POSIX-compliant platform, such as the possibility for
case-insensitive filesystems and executables that end in .exe). I
don't know whether it's ever been "officially supported" but someone
with a longer memory of the project can comment on that. I'm not sure
if it was discussed at all or not in the context of PEP 11.
I have personally put in a fair amount of effort already in either
fixing issues on Cygwin (many of these issues also impact MinGW), or
more often than not fixing issues in the CPython test suite on
Cygwin--these are mostly tests that are broken due to invalid
assumptions about the platform (for example, that there is always a
"root" user with uid=0; this is not the case on Cygwin). In other
cases some tests need to be skipped or worked around due to
platform-specific bugs, and Cygwin is hardly the only case of this in
the test suite.
I also have an experimental AppVeyor configuration for running the
tests on Cygwin , as well as an experimental buildbot (not
available on the internet, but working). These currently rely on a
custom branch that includes fixes needed for the test suite to run to
completion without crashing or hanging (e.g.
https://bugs.python.org/issue31885). It would be nice to add this as
an official buildbot, but I'm not sure if it makes sense to do that
until it's "green", or at least not crashing. I have several other
patches to the tests toward this goal, and am currently down to ~22
Before I do any more work on this, however, it would be best to once
and for all clarify the support for Cygwin in CPython, as it has never
been "officially supported" nor unsupported--this way we can avoid
having this discussion every time a patch related to Cygwin comes up.
I could provide some arguments for why I believe Cygwin should
supported, but before this gets too long I'd just like to float the
idea of having the discussion in the first place. It's also not
exactly clear to me how to meet the standards in PEP 11 for supporting
a platform--in particular it's not clear when a buildbot is considered
"stable", or how to achieve that without getting necessary fixes
merged into the main branch in the first place.
I have written a script that will go through and backfill the 'awaiting'
label on older pull requests based on the review state as it stands today.
A comment will be left if an "awaiting changes" label is set explaining
that we're backfilling and if you're ready for a change review then leave
the magical comment to trigger Bedevere.
My plan is to limit this to only 20 total comments within a day so at to
not overwhelm any single person with notifications. I will also run this
script manually so there's no guarantee this will even occur every day.
Assuming that 20 comment/day limit seems reasonable to people I will
probably do the inaugural run tomorrow which will add an 'awaiting label'
to 158 issues (which should be more than half of the issues lacking an
It looks like you're still building OS-X the same way as in the past:
Intel 32+64 bit, 10.6 compatibility
Is that right?
Might it be time for an update?
Do we still need to support 32 bit? From:
There has not been a 32 bit-only Mac sold since 2006, and a out-of the box
32 bit OS since 2006 or 2007
I can't find out what the older OS version Apple supports, but I know my IT
dept has been making me upgrade, so I"m going to guess 10.8 or newer...
And maybe we could even get rid of the "Framework" builds......
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
On Jan 30, 2018 6:47 PM, "Joni Orponen" <j.orponen(a)4teamwork.ch> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Ray Donnelly <mingw.android(a)gmail.com>
> While we're making such macOS-build requests, any chance of building a
> static interpreter too? We've been doing that on the Anaconda
> Distribution since the 5.0 release in September and it seems to be
> working well.
PyPy is also currently eyeing doing their macOS builds better:
What do the Anaconda static builds get built on?
We have our own clang pseudo cross-compilers and use a macOS 10.9 SDK for
all of our package compilation to achieve compatibility (this means we can
compile on newer macOS just fine). We see a 1.1 to 1.2 times performance
benefit over official releases as measured using 'python performance'.
Apart from a static interpreter we also enable LTO and PGO and only build
for 64-bit so I'm not sure how much each bit continues. Our recipe for
python 3.6 can be found at:
Python-Dev mailing list
I'll give some background before asking my question in more detail.
I've been tasked with writing some infrastructure code that needs to talk to Kubernetes. (Kubernetes is a popular software for managing and automating virtualization / containerization of cloud services). One of the requirements was that the code be written in Python 3.X.
The tasks my code was supposed to perform on Kubernetes would be something like cluster creation from specification, deletion of all or parts of the cluster, providing realtime statistics of cluster usage etc. There were few prototype scripts written in Bash using kubectl (official client written in Go).
My first reaction was to look for an official client for Kubernetes written in Python. There is one official client for Kubernetes, with a single maintainer, impossible to parse documentation, containing mostly generated code. It is nigh impossible to use. Here I need to explain that for whatever reason Kubernetes team decided to write their HTTP API in such a way that the server is "dumb" and the client must be "smart" in order to do anything useful. For instance, if you have a description of your cluster, you cannot just send this description to the server and hope that it will know how to create the cluster from description. You need to make multiple API calls (perhaps hundreds of them) to arrange for the server to create the cluster from description.
Since the official client is no help (it really only mirrors the HTTP API), I searched for other clients. There are two more. None is in good shape, and none comes even close to being able to do what kubectl can.
There is one more client that shells out calls to kubectl. It implements only a small subset of kubectl commands, and... it's a lot of parsing of standard output with regular expressions and magic.
Well... I was given a lot of time to investigate other options for dealing with this project, so I decided, what if I can compile kubectl into a shared library and write a Python extension that links against that library. And, indeed, after few days I came up with such an extension. It worked!.. On Linux...
Now all I had to do was to re-create my success on Windows (most of the employees in my company use Windows). At first I thought that I'd cross-compile on Linux using MinGW. I compiled Go shared library into a DLL, then tried to compile my Python extension and... it didn't work. I downloaded VirtualBox and some Windows images, etc... tried to compile on Windows. It didn't work. I started asking around, and was told that even though for some earlier versions of Python this was kind of possible, for Python 3.5, 3.6 it is not. You must use MSVC to compile Python extensions. No way around it.
Now, since Go won't compile with MSVC, I'll have to scrap my project and spend many weeks re-implementing kubectl.
Here's my question: Why?
Why did you choose to use non-free compiler, which also makes cross-compilation impossible? There wasn't really a reason not to choose MinGW as a way to compile extensions on Windows (Ruby does that, Go uses MinGW, perhaps some others too). It would've made things like CI and packaging so much easier... What do Python users / developers get from using MSVC instead?
This communication and all information contained in or attached to it is confidential, intended solely for the addressee, may be legally privileged and is the intellectual property of one of the companies of NEX Group plc ("NEX") or third parties. If you are not the intended addressee or receive this message in error, please immediately delete all copies of it and notify the sender. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachments. We do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. NEX reserves the right to monitor all communications. We do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of communications, and no communication shall be considered legally binding. Furthermore, if the content of this communication is personal or unconnected with our business, we accept no liability or responsibility for it. NEX Group plc is a public limited company registered in England and Wales under number 10013770 and certain of its affiliates are authorised and regulated by regulatory authorities. For further regulatory information please see www.NEX.com.
On my current system, "make test" runs in around 3 minutes, while
"./python -m test" runs in around 16 minutes. And that's with "make
test" actually running more tests (since it enables several of the
The difference is that "make test" passes "-j0" and hence not only
uses all the available cores in the machines, but will also run other
tests while some tests are sleeping.
How would folks feel about making "-j 0" the default in the test
suite, and then adjusted the handling of "-j 1" to switch back to the
current default single process mode?
My rationale for that is to improve the default edit-test cycle in
local development, while still providing a way to force single-process
execution for failure investigation purposes.
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Just a quick update: thanks to all of you who worked long hours to get features completed and merged in for the 3.7 feature code cutoff yesterday. We release elves have been busy behind the scenes baking goodies. So far everything looks OK. But we're taking a little longer than usual: this is, in many ways, the most complicated milestone of the release cycle, since it involves creating a new release branch and other munging, and this is the first time we are doing this since we moved to our new git-based workflow last year and we want to get it right. We will have everything done and announced in not more than 24 hours from now. If you wish, feel free to merge new commits into the master branch for release in 3.8, with the understanding that any also destined for 3.7.0 will need to be cherrypicked after the 3.7 branch is available. Other branches (3.6, 2.7) are unaffected.
Thanks for your patience!
nad(a)python.org --