hi there, folks:
I'd really like to release 0.7.0 but I would like it to be at least a
little bit tested before I do so. Could those of you with CVS trees check
everything out and see if it performs as advertised? Deeper bugs than
that will have to wait for the next release, but I'd at least like to know
if it works for someone other than me.
______ __ __ _____ _ _
| ____ | \_/ |_____] |_____|
|_____| |_____ | | | |
@ t w i s t e d m a t r i x . c o m
I'm getting a "maximum recursion depth exceeded" error that appears to be coming from flatten(). The odd thing is that it only happens sometimes. The HTML that's being flattened does have a few Deferreds in it. Those come from function calls, which cache the results, which might explain why I only see the error on the first visit to the page (as far as I can tell).
The system recursion limit is the standard 1000. My HTML is only nested a few tags deep, two orders of magnitude short of that. Is there anything about the way flatten() works that might cause this behaviour?
Has anyone contacted GitHub to see if they would be willing to increase
the parallelism limit in Actions? My understanding is that we maintain
two CI systems (GitHub Actions and Azure Pipelines) for the sake of more
parallelism. While perhaps worthwhile, this doesn't seem fun. Maybe
GitHub would be willing to help out.
I am announcing 2 twisted releases.
This is a bit more complicated than normal since 19.9.0rc1 was never
followed by a non-RC release.
You can see a detailed checklist and discussion of this in #313 .
Relative to 19.9.0rc1, 19.9.0 contains a few readme fixes and the news
fragments processed into the news file.
19.9.0 artifacts have been created  and 19.9.0 publishing is being
held until after 21.3.0 to avoid a somewhat pointless intermediate step
for developers that are using 'the latest non-pre release on PyPI'
No real need for someone to get 19.9.0 now just to see 21.3.0 available
next week. The news for 21.3.0 is available for review .
21.3.0rc1 has been published and is open for a week for feedback before
21.3.0 is planned to be released.
There are remaining bugs and important features. But, it took long
enough to get to this point that I consider it important to get
something out. Several people are waiting patiently . As we find
time to design and address the remaining issues, hopefully we can manage
more frequent releases.
Please do let me know of any issues you find that are not already
documented. Or, if any of the documented ones should really be release
blockers. I sure hope we can get this out though. :]
Should I enable GitHub discussions for twisted/twisted repo?
* it's like email but I think that it's easier to include/exclude people
interested in the discussion
* If an external person / one time contributor wants to participate in a
discussion, subscribing to the whole maillinglist is no longer required
* Should be easier to find the "right answer" inside a discussion.
* You can search the twisted/twisted repo from one place (GitHub top left
search bar) and also find discussion for that topic.
* Might help with keeping the comments inside the PR focused on the code
review as it should be easier to start a discussion
* Depend even more on GitHub / MS.. but I hope that even if
* Yet another communication channel for the Twisted community. We already
* this mailinglist
* the web mailinglist
* stack overflow
* GitHub PRs
We already depende a lot on Github for git hosting, code review, automated
tests, deployment, pypy publishing.
I don't know if the discussion feature will make much of a difference.
There is an API  that ctwisted-pythontwisted-pythonan be used to export
the data if needed or import mailman data.
What do you think?
Yes... no... maybe...stupid idea :)
We have an archive for this list  but there is no search.
I just reviewed https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/10052#comment:5 and it’s almost landable, it just needs a small amount of feedback addressed to land. Given that the submitter had to wait months for this review I don’t know if they’re tracking it closely, so I figured I’d raise it here to see if anyone else had a moment to nudge a good bugfix here over the line.
Thanks in advance to whoever picks it up,