Hello all, As reported in http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/4652, some problems have arisen with cfreactor. First, recent versions of Pyrex reject the Pyrex source for the support modules. This makes future development on cfreactor difficult (although Glyph's branch does resolve this problem - or at least appears to). Second, the C source files do not build with clang. This seems likely to become more important on future versions of OS X (the only platform where this code matters). Even OS X 10.6 makes clang easily available (according to an Ars Technica article, "Clang is the recommended compiler, and the focus of all of Apple's future efforts." http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/9) Finally, when the cfreactor build fails, distutils prematurely exits, preventing the rest of the build from completing. This point makes this a serious problem for Twisted as a whole, rather than an obscure platform quirk that can be ignored without wide-ranging consequences. Apple has announced OS X 10.7 for summer 2011. Presumably at some point prior to this they will freeze on a version of Twisted to package. The best outcome for Twisted can probably be attained by ensuring this is a version of Twisted which does not have the build issues reported in #4652. Rather than leaving this to chance, I propose that we remove cfreactor and all supporting code ourselves, immediately (ie, in 10.2 - hi therve, go faster next time ;). I think the relatively small userbase of cfreactor (I don't know of any projects using it, nor does Google codesearch) and the fact that the version of cfreactor in trunk segfaults partway through running the test suite, combined with the potentially time-sensitive nature of this fix, merits an exception to the normal backwards policy. Rather than removing it, we could fix it, but the fact that no one seems to be using it makes me think that no one with the expertise and interest will step up to so. If we're going to do this, it would be good to do it in the next few days (say, by Tuesday) so as not to unduly further delay the 10.2 release process. Thoughts? Jean-Paul