From barry at python.org  Thu Oct  1 14:54:31 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:54:31 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.3
Message-ID: <08BC0547-59FB-4D2D-B30F-B9DE838158EC@python.org>

We've had no show stopper bugs so far, so barring any new last minute  
red flags I think we'll go ahead and do the 2.6.3 final release.

Martin, Ronald, I will tag the tree tonight my time, some time after  
2200 utc.  That will give you overnight your time to build the  
binaries.  Then I'll flip the web site switch and make the  
announcement some time tomorrow.

Sound okay?
-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091001/ba325989/attachment.pgp>

From ronaldoussoren at mac.com  Thu Oct  1 14:57:49 2009
From: ronaldoussoren at mac.com (Ronald Oussoren)
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:57:49 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.3
In-Reply-To: <08BC0547-59FB-4D2D-B30F-B9DE838158EC@python.org>
References: <08BC0547-59FB-4D2D-B30F-B9DE838158EC@python.org>
Message-ID: <89BA80BA-8C6A-47E6-ADCD-C306EFB43CFE@mac.com>


On 1 Oct, 2009, at 14:54, Barry Warsaw wrote:

> We've had no show stopper bugs so far, so barring any new last  
> minute red flags I think we'll go ahead and do the 2.6.3 final  
> release.
>
> Martin, Ronald, I will tag the tree tonight my time, some time after  
> 2200 utc.  That will give you overnight your time to build the  
> binaries.  Then I'll flip the web site switch and make the  
> announcement some time tomorrow.
>
> Sound okay?

Sounds good to me.

Ronald

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091001/45a229bc/attachment.bin>

From barry at python.org  Fri Oct  2 01:44:27 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 19:44:27 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Fwd: [Python-checkins] r75184 - python/tags/r263
References: <20091001234036.C081DE3AE0@mail.wooz.org>
Message-ID: <546F2286-0C27-4DA0-AF1F-1BDD986BA00A@python.org>

Martin, Ronald, Python 2.6.3 final is tagged.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: barry.warsaw <python-checkins at python.org>
> Date: October 1, 2009 7:40:36 PM EDT
> To: python-checkins at python.org
> Subject: [Python-checkins] r75184 - python/tags/r263
> Message-Id: <20091001234036.C081DE3AE0 at mail.wooz.org>
>
> Author: barry.warsaw
> Date: Fri Oct  2 01:40:29 2009
> New Revision: 75184
>
> Log:
> Tagging for 2.6.3 final.
>
>
> Added:
>   python/tags/r263/
>      - copied from r75183, /python/branches/release26-maint/
> _______________________________________________
> Python-checkins mailing list
> Python-checkins at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-checkins

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091001/e20e4698/attachment.pgp>

From steve at holdenweb.com  Fri Oct  2 05:05:17 2009
From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden)
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:05:17 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Fwd: [Python-checkins] r75184 -
	python/tags/r263
In-Reply-To: <546F2286-0C27-4DA0-AF1F-1BDD986BA00A@python.org>
References: <20091001234036.C081DE3AE0@mail.wooz.org>
	<546F2286-0C27-4DA0-AF1F-1BDD986BA00A@python.org>
Message-ID: <4AC56DED.5050908@holdenweb.com>

And of course this is going to be the best-tested release ever on
Windows, since I went to all the trouble of getting those MSDN
subscriptions for everyone, right?

regards
 Steve

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Martin, Ronald, Python 2.6.3 final is tagged.
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: barry.warsaw <python-checkins at python.org>
>> Date: October 1, 2009 7:40:36 PM EDT
>> To: python-checkins at python.org
>> Subject: [Python-checkins] r75184 - python/tags/r263
>> Message-Id: <20091001234036.C081DE3AE0 at mail.wooz.org>
>>
>> Author: barry.warsaw
>> Date: Fri Oct  2 01:40:29 2009
>> New Revision: 75184
>>
>> Log:
>> Tagging for 2.6.3 final.
>>
>>
>> Added:
>>   python/tags/r263/
>>      - copied from r75183, /python/branches/release26-maint/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Python-checkins mailing list
>> Python-checkins at python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-checkins
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers


-- 
Steve Holden           +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC                 http://www.holdenweb.com/
Watch PyCon on video now!          http://pycon.blip.tv/


From ncoghlan at gmail.com  Fri Oct  2 12:22:40 2009
From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan)
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:22:40 +1000
Subject: [python-committers] Fwd: [Python-checkins] r75184
	-	python/tags/r263
In-Reply-To: <4AC56DED.5050908@holdenweb.com>
References: <20091001234036.C081DE3AE0@mail.wooz.org>	<546F2286-0C27-4DA0-AF1F-1BDD986BA00A@python.org>
	<4AC56DED.5050908@holdenweb.com>
Message-ID: <4AC5D470.9020705@gmail.com>

Steve Holden wrote:
> And of course this is going to be the best-tested release ever on
> Windows, since I went to all the trouble of getting those MSDN
> subscriptions for everyone, right?

Naturally! ;)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------

From barry at python.org  Sat Oct  3 00:45:11 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 18:45:11 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] release26-maint is open
Message-ID: <3CFD72CF-E78B-44FF-B427-F0A908582324@python.org>

Thanks everybody for your help with 2.6.3.  The deed is done, so the  
2.6 branch is now open.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091002/7b29a5d7/attachment.pgp>

From martin at v.loewis.de  Sun Oct  4 11:02:21 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:02:21 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
Message-ID: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>

It seems logging is broken in 2.6.3. Should we release
2.6.4 quickly?

http://bugs.python.org/issue7052

Regards,
Martin

From theller at ctypes.org  Sun Oct  4 12:14:23 2009
From: theller at ctypes.org (Thomas Heller)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:14:23 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>

Martin v. L?wis schrieb:
> It seems logging is broken in 2.6.3. Should we release
> 2.6.4 quickly?
> 
> http://bugs.python.org/issue7052

It also reports a 2.6.3rc1 version number on windows:

Python 2.6.3 (r263rc1:75186, Oct  2 2009, 20:40:30) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)]
on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>>

Thomas

From solipsis at pitrou.net  Sun Oct  4 13:38:33 2009
From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:38:33 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>  <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
Message-ID: <1254656313.5267.1.camel@localhost>

Le dimanche 04 octobre 2009 ? 12:14 +0200, Thomas Heller a ?crit :
> Martin v. L?wis schrieb:
> > It seems logging is broken in 2.6.3. Should we release
> > 2.6.4 quickly?
> > 
> > http://bugs.python.org/issue7052

Perhaps we should leave a one-week delay between rc and final next time,
so that this kind of late-minute issues have an opportunity to be
discovered ?




From kbk at shore.net  Sun Oct  4 19:56:50 2009
From: kbk at shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:56:50 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
Message-ID: <1254679010.14266.1337978977@webmail.messagingengine.com>


On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:14:23 +0200, "Thomas Heller" <theller at ctypes.org>
said:
> Martin v. L?wis schrieb:
> > It seems logging is broken in 2.6.3. Should we release
> > 2.6.4 quickly?
> > 
> > http://bugs.python.org/issue7052
> 
> It also reports a 2.6.3rc1 version number on windows:
> 
> Python 2.6.3 (r263rc1:75186, Oct  2 2009, 20:40:30) [MSC v.1500 32 bit
> (Intel)]
> on win32
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>>

I did an upgrade in-place on Win XP.  In c:\Python26 I found

python26.dll  2,084KB 4/14/2009 10:42 PM
python.exe       26KB 10/2/2009 8:42 PM

When I ran python.exe from c:\Python26 I got

Python 2.6.2 (r262:71605, Apr 14 2009, 22:40:02) [MSC v.1500 32 bit
(Intel)] on win32
Type "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I then re-ran the installer and 'repaired' Python.  No difference.

I used the Control Panel to uninstall Python2.6.  It didn't completely
remove - python26.dll, msvcr90.dll, and Microsoft.VC90.CRT.manifest
remained.

Reinstalled Python2.6 - no difference.
Uninstalled Python26, deleted the Python26 directory, reinstalled Python
2.6.3.  Now have correct version.

Found python26.dll in c:\Windows\System32\ with 10/2 date.  Clearly this
was being shadowed by the python26.dll in c:\Python26\.  I have no idea
where that came from - as far as I know, I had a vanilla 2.6.2
installation, and I don't build Python on Windows.

FWIW to the Windows gurus.





-- 
KBK


From skip at pobox.com  Sun Oct  4 20:06:34 2009
From: skip at pobox.com (skip at pobox.com)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 13:06:34 -0500
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <1254656313.5267.1.camel@localhost>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254656313.5267.1.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <19144.58410.983557.211132@montanaro.dyndns.org>

    Antoine> Perhaps we should leave a one-week delay between rc and final
    Antoine> next time, so that this kind of late-minute issues have an
    Antoine> opportunity to be discovered ?

Yeah, I was a little surprised the final release followed rc1 so quickly.
We were working through some problems on Solaris at work (I submitted
several bugs as a result), but couldn't pump them out fast enough to get
them seen before the final release went out.

Skip

From martin at v.loewis.de  Sun Oct  4 20:20:33 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:20:33 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <1254679010.14266.1337978977@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254679010.14266.1337978977@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <4AC8E771.6000409@v.loewis.de>

> Found python26.dll in c:\Windows\System32\ with 10/2 date.  Clearly this
> was being shadowed by the python26.dll in c:\Python26\.  I have no idea
> where that came from - as far as I know, I had a vanilla 2.6.2
> installation, and I don't build Python on Windows.
> 
> FWIW to the Windows gurus.

The final 2.6.3 release mistakenly identifies its svn tag as 263rc1.
It still actually is the final release, as can be seen when looking
at sys.version_info.

Regards,
Martin

From kbk at shore.net  Sun Oct  4 20:24:35 2009
From: kbk at shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:24:35 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <4AC8E771.6000409@v.loewis.de>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254679010.14266.1337978977@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8E771.6000409@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <1254680675.19360.1337987565@webmail.messagingengine.com>


On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:20:33 +0200, ""Martin v. L?wis""
<martin at v.loewis.de> said:
> > Found python26.dll in c:\Windows\System32\ with 10/2 date.  Clearly this
> > was being shadowed by the python26.dll in c:\Python26\.  I have no idea
> > where that came from - as far as I know, I had a vanilla 2.6.2
> > installation, and I don't build Python on Windows.
> > 
> > FWIW to the Windows gurus.
> 
> The final 2.6.3 release mistakenly identifies its svn tag as 263rc1.
> It still actually is the final release, as can be seen when looking
> at sys.version_info.

Yes, but what I experienced is much worse - I was actually getting the
2.6.2 version of python26.dll due to shadowing, instead of the 2.6.3
version.

-- 
KBK


From martin at v.loewis.de  Sun Oct  4 20:47:28 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:47:28 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <1254680675.19360.1337987565@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254679010.14266.1337978977@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8E771.6000409@v.loewis.de>
	<1254680675.19360.1337987565@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <4AC8EDC0.80805@v.loewis.de>

> Yes, but what I experienced is much worse - I was actually getting the
> 2.6.2 version of python26.dll due to shadowing, instead of the 2.6.3
> version.

Ah. Did you get a message "[TARGETDIR] exists. Are you sure you want to
overwrite existing files?"

Regards,
Martin

From kbk at shore.net  Sun Oct  4 21:00:23 2009
From: kbk at shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:00:23 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <4AC8EDC0.80805@v.loewis.de>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254679010.14266.1337978977@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8E771.6000409@v.loewis.de>
	<1254680675.19360.1337987565@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8EDC0.80805@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <1254682823.25822.1337990599@webmail.messagingengine.com>


On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:47:28 +0200, ""Martin v. L?wis""
<martin at v.loewis.de> said:
> > Yes, but what I experienced is much worse - I was actually getting the
> > 2.6.2 version of python26.dll due to shadowing, instead of the 2.6.3
> > version.
> 
> Ah. Did you get a message "[TARGETDIR] exists. Are you sure you want to
> overwrite existing files?"

I may well have, but that wouldn't surprise me when doing an upgrade in
place.

The real problem, it seems, is there was a spurious python26.dll in
c:\Python26, which shadowed the one in c:\Windows.  That file may have
been unique to my installation (I don't recall duplicating it - no
reason to do so).  But if other people have it subsequent to a 2.6.2
install, they will probably have the same difficulty I had.

-- 
KBK


From martin at v.loewis.de  Sun Oct  4 21:42:29 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:42:29 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <1254682823.25822.1337990599@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254679010.14266.1337978977@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8E771.6000409@v.loewis.de>
	<1254680675.19360.1337987565@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8EDC0.80805@v.loewis.de>
	<1254682823.25822.1337990599@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <4AC8FAA5.9070807@v.loewis.de>

>>> Yes, but what I experienced is much worse - I was actually getting the
>>> 2.6.2 version of python26.dll due to shadowing, instead of the 2.6.3
>>> version.
>> Ah. Did you get a message "[TARGETDIR] exists. Are you sure you want to
>> overwrite existing files?"
> 
> I may well have, but that wouldn't surprise me when doing an upgrade in
> place.

Ok, so I need to make the message more clear that this is an error, and
that most likely you do not want to proceed. If this was an upgrade
in place, the message would have read "This update will replace your
existing [ProductLine] installation."

> The real problem, it seems, is there was a spurious python26.dll in
> c:\Python26, which shadowed the one in c:\Windows.

Not spurious. Most likely, your previous installation was "just for me";
in this case, it cannot install into system32.

If you then do a "for all users" installation into the same location,
you get the behavior that you observed: python26.dll gets installed to
system32, and you end up with two copies of the DLL.

Regards,
Martin



From kbk at shore.net  Sun Oct  4 22:18:45 2009
From: kbk at shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:18:45 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <4AC8FAA5.9070807@v.loewis.de>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254679010.14266.1337978977@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8E771.6000409@v.loewis.de>
	<1254680675.19360.1337987565@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8EDC0.80805@v.loewis.de>
	<1254682823.25822.1337990599@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8FAA5.9070807@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <1254687525.8324.1337996983@webmail.messagingengine.com>


On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:42:29 +0200, ""Martin v. L?wis""
<martin at v.loewis.de> said:
> >>> Yes, but what I experienced is much worse - I was actually getting the
> >>> 2.6.2 version of python26.dll due to shadowing, instead of the 2.6.3
> >>> version.
> >> Ah. Did you get a message "[TARGETDIR] exists. Are you sure you want to
> >> overwrite existing files?"
> > 
> > I may well have, but that wouldn't surprise me when doing an upgrade in
> > place.
> 
> Ok, so I need to make the message more clear that this is an error, and
> that most likely you do not want to proceed. If this was an upgrade
> in place, the message would have read "This update will replace your
> existing [ProductLine] installation."

Well, I'm not at all sure that I saw the 'exists' message.  That one is
raised whenever the directory tree isn't empty?


> 
> > The real problem, it seems, is there was a spurious python26.dll in
> > c:\Python26, which shadowed the one in c:\Windows.
> 
> Not spurious. Most likely, your previous installation was "just for me";
> in this case, it cannot install into system32.

Ah so!  I think that is quite likely.  I'm not a big Windows user and it
took me a bit to realize the disadvantages of a 'just for me'
installation on my netbook.

> 
> If you then do a "for all users" installation into the same location,
> you get the behavior that you observed: python26.dll gets installed to
> system32, and you end up with two copies of the DLL.

Is there a way to configure the installer so that if an 'all users'
installation was being done, any python26.dll in c:\Python26 would be
deleted?  I'm surely not the only person who's going to run into this.

Thanks for the analysis.

-- 
KBK


From martin at v.loewis.de  Sun Oct  4 23:02:02 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:02:02 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <1254687525.8324.1337996983@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254679010.14266.1337978977@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8E771.6000409@v.loewis.de>
	<1254680675.19360.1337987565@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8EDC0.80805@v.loewis.de>
	<1254682823.25822.1337990599@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4AC8FAA5.9070807@v.loewis.de>
	<1254687525.8324.1337996983@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <4AC90D4A.20004@v.loewis.de>

>> Ok, so I need to make the message more clear that this is an error, and
>> that most likely you do not want to proceed. If this was an upgrade
>> in place, the message would have read "This update will replace your
>> existing [ProductLine] installation."
> 
> Well, I'm not at all sure that I saw the 'exists' message.  That one is
> raised whenever the directory tree isn't empty?

No, only if the directory exists, and isn't considered as having a
version to upgrade.

> Is there a way to configure the installer so that if an 'all users'
> installation was being done, any python26.dll in c:\Python26 would be
> deleted?

Unfortunately, no. That's why the warning message is issued that this
kind of installation is probably the wrong thing to do.

Regards,
Martin

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct  5 19:02:41 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:02:41 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] 2.6 tree freeze
Message-ID: <8A16313F-D081-4E10-A9A7-E626F2BE1874@python.org>

It seems likely that we'll have to make a quick 2.6.4.  Please, do not  
commit anything to the 2.6-maint tree without checking with me first.

Thanks,
-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091005/18a82afc/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct  5 22:24:08 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:24:08 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <29206241-A578-4650-930D-0EEE371D3C78@python.org>

On Oct 4, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Martin v. L?wis wrote:

> It seems logging is broken in 2.6.3. Should we release
> 2.6.4 quickly?
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue7052

I believe both the logging fix and the distutils fix is in the tree  
now, right?  There are no other release blockers in the tracker.

Unless there are objections, I will tag the tree for 2.6.4rc1 tomorrow  
morning UTC-0400 and make the release as soon as the Mac image and  
Windows binaries are available.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091005/cfe8d7b1/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct  5 22:26:24 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:26:24 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <1254656313.5267.1.camel@localhost>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254656313.5267.1.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <612803F1-6517-4D01-A645-DD9D38CE69D5@python.org>

On Oct 4, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

> Perhaps we should leave a one-week delay between rc and final next  
> time,
> so that this kind of late-minute issues have an opportunity to be
> discovered ?

I'm skeptical it would have made a difference, and I seemed to have  
misplaced the copy of Guido's time machine keys that I had, but it's a  
worthwhile experiment anyway :).

Shall we say 2.6.4rc1 tomorrow-ish and if no rc2 is necessary, a final  
release on Friday the 16th?

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091005/54de715e/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct  5 22:27:03 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:27:03 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <19144.58410.983557.211132@montanaro.dyndns.org>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254656313.5267.1.camel@localhost>
	<19144.58410.983557.211132@montanaro.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <684C5258-DFC3-4641-A9DE-4B3572BF4534@python.org>

On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:06 PM, skip at pobox.com wrote:

>    Antoine> Perhaps we should leave a one-week delay between rc and  
> final
>    Antoine> next time, so that this kind of late-minute issues have an
>    Antoine> opportunity to be discovered ?
>
> Yeah, I was a little surprised the final release followed rc1 so  
> quickly.
> We were working through some problems on Solaris at work (I submitted
> several bugs as a result), but couldn't pump them out fast enough to  
> get
> them seen before the final release went out.

But no release blockers in that set of bugs?

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091005/6c8a5d49/attachment.pgp>

From skip at pobox.com  Mon Oct  5 23:07:48 2009
From: skip at pobox.com (skip at pobox.com)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:07:48 -0500
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <684C5258-DFC3-4641-A9DE-4B3572BF4534@python.org>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de> <4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>
	<1254656313.5267.1.camel@localhost>
	<19144.58410.983557.211132@montanaro.dyndns.org>
	<684C5258-DFC3-4641-A9DE-4B3572BF4534@python.org>
Message-ID: <19146.24612.442055.121122@montanaro.dyndns.org>


    Barry> But no release blockers in that set of bugs?

I've no idea.  By the time I could submit the reports the final release was
out so I didn't even consider whether they would have been release blockers
or not.

Skip

From martin at v.loewis.de  Mon Oct  5 23:00:25 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:00:25 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <612803F1-6517-4D01-A645-DD9D38CE69D5@python.org>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>
	<4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>	<1254656313.5267.1.camel@localhost>
	<612803F1-6517-4D01-A645-DD9D38CE69D5@python.org>
Message-ID: <4ACA5E69.3090806@v.loewis.de>

> I'm skeptical it would have made a difference, and I seemed to have
> misplaced the copy of Guido's time machine keys that I had, but it's a
> worthwhile experiment anyway :).
> 
> Shall we say 2.6.4rc1 tomorrow-ish and if no rc2 is necessary, a final
> release on Friday the 16th?

I'll likely be able to produce binaries only on Saturday (17th), but
otherwise, the schedule sounds find to me (in particular as I'm
travelling next week and won't be able to produce binaries between this
Saturday and next Friday).

Regards,
Martin

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct  5 23:09:39 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:09:39 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <4ACA5E69.3090806@v.loewis.de>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>
	<4AC8757F.6050007@ctypes.org>	<1254656313.5267.1.camel@localhost>
	<612803F1-6517-4D01-A645-DD9D38CE69D5@python.org>
	<4ACA5E69.3090806@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <0DA9B0E3-5641-4579-BC2B-EB5CA21DD2E3@python.org>

On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote:

>> I'm skeptical it would have made a difference, and I seemed to have
>> misplaced the copy of Guido's time machine keys that I had, but  
>> it's a
>> worthwhile experiment anyway :).
>>
>> Shall we say 2.6.4rc1 tomorrow-ish and if no rc2 is necessary, a  
>> final
>> release on Friday the 16th?
>
> I'll likely be able to produce binaries only on Saturday (17th), but
> otherwise, the schedule sounds find to me (in particular as I'm
> travelling next week and won't be able to produce binaries between  
> this
> Saturday and next Friday).

I could probably do a release on Saturday or Sunday.

-Barry


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091005/c78881fb/attachment-0001.pgp>

From ocean-city at m2.ccsnet.ne.jp  Tue Oct  6 11:46:03 2009
From: ocean-city at m2.ccsnet.ne.jp (Hirokazu Yamamoto)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0900
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <29206241-A578-4650-930D-0EEE371D3C78@python.org>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>
	<29206241-A578-4650-930D-0EEE371D3C78@python.org>
Message-ID: <4ACB11DB.9070308@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp>


> Unless there are objections, I will tag the tree for 2.6.4rc1 tomorrow 
> morning UTC-0400 and make the release as soon as the Mac image and 
> Windows binaries are available.
> 
> -Barry

I think it will be nice if issue6869 will be fixed before 2.6.4.
(This is crash bug, so)

And I'm happy if r74952 will be backported as well. :-)

From barry at python.org  Tue Oct  6 15:00:13 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:00:13 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Python 2.6.4?
In-Reply-To: <4ACB11DB.9070308@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
References: <4AC8649D.1010502@v.loewis.de>
	<29206241-A578-4650-930D-0EEE371D3C78@python.org>
	<4ACB11DB.9070308@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Message-ID: <5DD8D877-2FCF-4512-B151-8B551C8E5F7F@python.org>

On Oct 6, 2009, at 5:46 AM, Hirokazu Yamamoto wrote:

>
>> Unless there are objections, I will tag the tree for 2.6.4rc1  
>> tomorrow morning UTC-0400 and make the release as soon as the Mac  
>> image and Windows binaries are available.
>> -Barry
>
> I think it will be nice if issue6869 will be fixed before 2.6.4.
> (This is crash bug, so)
>
> And I'm happy if r74952 will be backported as well. :-)

I want to keep 2.6.4 tightly focussed on fixing the brown paper bag  
bugs in logging and distutils.  Sorry, but this will have to wait for  
2.6.5.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091006/10bd9206/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Tue Oct  6 15:15:32 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:15:32 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] tagging for 2.6.4rc1
Message-ID: <70E61AC9-9304-443C-9A00-EA8C9C6D5DF9@python.org>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091006/f9ef9202/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Tue Oct 13 14:27:01 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:27:01 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] On track for Python 2.6.4 final this Sunday?
Message-ID: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>

Are we on track to release 2.6.4 final this Sunday or do we need  
another rc?

Yesterday, Tarek committed another setuptools related fix and said  
that he was going to run a bunch of build tests locally.  Tarek, how  
did that go?

Please note that issue 7064 is still open as a release blocker.  Can  
we close that (again) now?

http://bugs.python.org/issue7064

I am still being very conservative about what goes in 2.6.4.  Only  
regressions introduced in 2.6.3 are being accepted.  There's plenty of  
time after that for patches to go in for 2.6.5.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091013/fe1891d5/attachment.pgp>

From mal at egenix.com  Tue Oct 13 16:16:36 2009
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:16:36 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
Message-ID: <4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Are we on track to release 2.6.4 final this Sunday or do we need another
> rc?
> 
> Yesterday, Tarek committed another setuptools related fix and said that
> he was going to run a bunch of build tests locally.  Tarek, how did that
> go?
> 
> Please note that issue 7064 is still open as a release blocker.  Can we
> close that (again) now?
> 
> http://bugs.python.org/issue7064
> 
> I am still being very conservative about what goes in 2.6.4.  Only
> regressions introduced in 2.6.3 are being accepted.  There's plenty of
> time after that for patches to go in for 2.6.5.

It would be nice to get this issue resolved out for 2.6.4:

http://bugs.python.org/issue4120

The problem is that extensions built with 2.6.x will not work
when used with a User-only installation of Python on machines that
don't already have the MS VC90 CRT DLLs installed system-wide.

There's a patch available that appears to work, but someone with
more manifest-Windows-DLL-fu than me will need to have a look at it.

One possible approach would be to use the patch in 2.6.4 and then
continue digging deeper until 2.6.5 is released.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Oct 13 2009)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::


   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

From martin at v.loewis.de  Tue Oct 13 16:41:01 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:41:01 +0800
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python
 2.6.4	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>
Message-ID: <4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de>


> It would be nice to get this issue resolved out for 2.6.4:
> 
> http://bugs.python.org/issue4120
> 
> The problem is that extensions built with 2.6.x will not work
> when used with a User-only installation of Python on machines that
> don't already have the MS VC90 CRT DLLs installed system-wide.

As this bug already exists in 2.6.2, I don't think the change is
eligible for 2.6.4.

In addition, I want to review it, which I won't be able to until
Sunday.

> One possible approach would be to use the patch in 2.6.4 and then
> continue digging deeper until 2.6.5 is released.

This also speaks against the patch. Anything being changed in this area
ideally should be the final state of affairs for the rest of 2.6.x.

Regards,
Martin


From pje at telecommunity.com  Tue Oct 13 16:52:02 2009
From: pje at telecommunity.com (P.J. Eby)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:52:02 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
Message-ID: <20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>

At 08:27 AM 10/13/2009 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>Are we on track to release 2.6.4 final this Sunday or do we need
>another rc?
>
>Yesterday, Tarek committed another setuptools related fix and said
>that he was going to run a bunch of build tests locally.  Tarek, how
>did that go?

FWIW, that change won't work to fix the problem on Windows if a 
package's setup.py is written with cross-platform paths (i.e., the usual case).

Also, for the record, it's not really a setuptools-related fix; it's 
just attempting to fix collateral damage caused by the attempt to fix 
the problems caused by the original API change...  which affected all 
build_ext customizations relying on the docstring of the changed 
method, not just the one in setuptools.


From mal at egenix.com  Tue Oct 13 17:01:05 2009
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:01:05 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python
 2.6.4	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>
	<4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <4AD49631.70607@egenix.com>

"Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> 
>> It would be nice to get this issue resolved out for 2.6.4:
>>
>> http://bugs.python.org/issue4120
>>
>> The problem is that extensions built with 2.6.x will not work
>> when used with a User-only installation of Python on machines that
>> don't already have the MS VC90 CRT DLLs installed system-wide.
> 
> As this bug already exists in 2.6.2, I don't think the change is
> eligible for 2.6.4.
> 
> In addition, I want to review it, which I won't be able to until
> Sunday.

Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a
chance to look at the patch.

>> One possible approach would be to use the patch in 2.6.4 and then
>> continue digging deeper until 2.6.5 is released.
> 
> This also speaks against the patch. Anything being changed in this area
> ideally should be the final state of affairs for the rest of 2.6.x.

Of course, but we don't live in an ideal world, otherwise we would
have noticed before releasing 2.6 :-)

I guess the problem is that developer typically already have the
MS VC90 CRT DLLs installed system-wide, so they simply don't notice.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Oct 13 2009)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::


   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

From ziade.tarek at gmail.com  Tue Oct 13 17:16:19 2009
From: ziade.tarek at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tarek_Ziad=E9?=)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:16:19 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
Message-ID: <94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> At 08:27 AM 10/13/2009 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>> Are we on track to release 2.6.4 final this Sunday or do we need
>> another rc?
>>
>> Yesterday, Tarek committed another setuptools related fix and said
>> that he was going to run a bunch of build tests locally. ?Tarek, how
>> did that go?
>

I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
various projects under win32.
It's planned to night.

The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
projects on linux and win32 (and bith when possible)

> FWIW, that change won't work to fix the problem on Windows if a package's
> setup.py is written with cross-platform paths (i.e., the usual case).
>
> Also, for the record, it's not really a setuptools-related fix; it's just
> attempting to fix collateral damage caused by the attempt to fix the
> problems caused by the original API change... ?which affected all build_ext
> customizations relying on the docstring of the changed method, not just the
> one in setuptools.

Yes the doctest was pretty fuzzy about what is an extension name. It's
will be improved in 2.7.

The current code is doing os.path.join()'s to join the Extension name
with the build path,
leading to the collateral damage you are mentioning. To fix the
problem, the API has to be as permissive
as it was before.

I have already three or four tests to fix that problem in
test_build_ext. If you can take a look at them and
think of any other test that would be missing, that would be
appreciated. Another pair of eye is never enough.

Tarek

From martin at v.loewis.de  Tue Oct 13 17:20:21 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:20:21 +0800
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python
 2.6.4	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD49631.70607@egenix.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>
	<4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de> <4AD49631.70607@egenix.com>
Message-ID: <4AD49AB5.9040703@v.loewis.de>


>> As this bug already exists in 2.6.2, I don't think the change is
>> eligible for 2.6.4.
>>
>> In addition, I want to review it, which I won't be able to until
>> Sunday.
> 
> Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a
> chance to look at the patch.

That won't make the change more eligible.

> Of course, but we don't live in an ideal world, otherwise we would
> have noticed before releasing 2.6 :-)

Oh, I did notice. I had been cautioning for years that switching to
a newer VS version (2005 or later) would cause severe problems. We
are still trying to recover from the switch to VS 2008. That said,
staying with VS 2003 really hadn't been an option, either. It's
just said that Microsoft has created a new DLL hell in their attempt
to fix the old one, and that they fail to admit it (assuming that
everybody should be using .NET, anyway).

Regards,
Martin


From pje at telecommunity.com  Tue Oct 13 17:30:26 2009
From: pje at telecommunity.com (P.J. Eby)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:30:26 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
 final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091013153037.3EB2A3A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>

At 05:16 PM 10/13/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziad? wrote:
>Yes the doctest was pretty fuzzy about what is an extension name. It's
>will be improved in 2.7.
>
>The current code is doing os.path.join()'s to join the Extension name
>with the build path,
>leading to the collateral damage you are mentioning. To fix the
>problem, the API has to be as permissive
>as it was before.
>
>I have already three or four tests to fix that problem in
>test_build_ext. If you can take a look at them and
>think of any other test that would be missing, that would be
>appreciated. Another pair of eye is never enough.

One identical to test_build_ext_path_with_os_sep, but that explicitly 
uses a '/' (rather than os.sep) will identify the problem I'm 
referring to, when run on Windows.

It's common practice to use /-separated paths in setup scripts, 
regardless of platform.  So, your current fix (converting os.sep to 
'.') will work on Linux, Mac, etc., but fail on Windows when run with 
the same setup.py, since os.sep is a backslash there.

(Just as a side note, if when you split off issue 7115 you'd said 
what the new issue number was in 7064, or copied me to the nosy-list 
on the new issue, I'd have been able to review this change and 
comment on it yesterday instead of today, and I'd have done it in the 
bug tracker rather than via Python-Dev.)


From ziade.tarek at gmail.com  Tue Oct 13 17:39:10 2009
From: ziade.tarek at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tarek_Ziad=E9?=)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:39:10 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <20091013153037.3EB2A3A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091013153037.3EB2A3A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
Message-ID: <94bdd2610910130839jf0b653fg231d1ed4c5236c10@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>
> One identical to test_build_ext_path_with_os_sep, but that explicitly uses a
> '/' (rather than os.sep) will identify the problem I'm referring to, when
> run on Windows.
>
> It's common practice to use /-separated paths in setup scripts, regardless
> of platform. ?So, your current fix (converting os.sep to '.') will work on
> Linux, Mac, etc., but fail on Windows when run with the same setup.py, since
> os.sep is a backslash there.

Ok I will have a look at  this tonite. Thanks. Notice that this changed I made
to fix another bug opened a can of worms because Extension is not enough/clearly
documented in this regards.

The goal for 2.7/3.2 is to come up with one single way to define extensions,
and I will probably just add deprecation warnings  for the other forms.

>
> (Just as a side note, if when you split off issue 7115 you'd said what the
> new issue number was in 7064, or copied me to the nosy-list on the new
> issue, I'd have been able to review this change and comment on it yesterday
> instead of today, and I'd have done it in the bug tracker rather than via
> Python-Dev.)

Sorry about that, I'll add a note on #7064.

From mal at egenix.com  Tue Oct 13 17:59:17 2009
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:59:17 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python
 2.6.4	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD49AB5.9040703@v.loewis.de>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>	<4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de>
	<4AD49631.70607@egenix.com> <4AD49AB5.9040703@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <4AD4A3D5.8030907@egenix.com>

"Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> 
>>> As this bug already exists in 2.6.2, I don't think the change is
>>> eligible for 2.6.4.
>>>
>>> In addition, I want to review it, which I won't be able to until
>>> Sunday.
>>
>> Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a
>> chance to look at the patch.
> 
> That won't make the change more eligible.

No, but chances increase :-)

>> Of course, but we don't live in an ideal world, otherwise we would
>> have noticed before releasing 2.6 :-)
> 
> Oh, I did notice. I had been cautioning for years that switching to
> a newer VS version (2005 or later) would cause severe problems. We
> are still trying to recover from the switch to VS 2008. That said,
> staying with VS 2003 really hadn't been an option, either. It's
> just said that Microsoft has created a new DLL hell in their attempt
> to fix the old one, and that they fail to admit it (assuming that
> everybody should be using .NET, anyway).

Well, hopefully we can work out those problems and then stay with
VS 2008 a bit.

MS is already working on VS 2010:

http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010/default.mspx

List of C/C++ changes:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd465215(VS.100).aspx

Not sure what this means:

"""
The libraries deployment model is no longer based on the fusion mechanism, and manifests are no
longer used. Instead, the name of each dynamic link library contains its version number.
"""

Perhaps they finally realized that adding version number to DLLs is
better than trying to match manifests.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Oct 13 2009)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::


   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

From barry at python.org  Tue Oct 13 18:56:09 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:56:09 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python
	2.6.4	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD49631.70607@egenix.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>
	<4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de> <4AD49631.70607@egenix.com>
Message-ID: <E048EC3C-4640-424D-B6B1-223A6CB519D5@python.org>

On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:01 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

> Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a
> chance to look at the patch.

That's not a good option, IMO.  We have a known broken 2.6.3 out there  
and we owe it to our users to correct our mistake and given them the  
release they should have gotten in the first place.

We don't need to wait too long for 2.6.5 though.  A few months would  
be appropriate.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091013/646e6f94/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Tue Oct 13 18:57:21 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:57:21 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>

On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tarek Ziad? wrote:

> I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
> various projects under win32.
> It's planned to night.
>
> The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
> projects on linux and win32 (and bith when possible)

Great thanks, let us know how it goes.  If there's any question at all  
about the fixes that have gone in since rc1, we should spin an rc2.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091013/29a389de/attachment-0001.pgp>

From mal at egenix.com  Tue Oct 13 19:07:22 2009
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:07:22 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python
 2.6.4	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <E048EC3C-4640-424D-B6B1-223A6CB519D5@python.org>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>	<4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de>
	<4AD49631.70607@egenix.com>
	<E048EC3C-4640-424D-B6B1-223A6CB519D5@python.org>
Message-ID: <4AD4B3CA.4000409@egenix.com>

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:01 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> 
>> Then I'd suggest to wait another week with 2.6.4 to give you a
>> chance to look at the patch.
> 
> That's not a good option, IMO.  We have a known broken 2.6.3 out there
> and we owe it to our users to correct our mistake and given them the
> release they should have gotten in the first place.
> 
> We don't need to wait too long for 2.6.5 though.  A few months would be
> appropriate.

Would it be reasonable to shorten that period, if the fix for the
mentioned problem gets ready for prime time earlier ?

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Oct 13 2009)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::


   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

From barry at python.org  Tue Oct 13 19:12:42 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:12:42 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python
	2.6.4	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD4B3CA.4000409@egenix.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>	<4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de>
	<4AD49631.70607@egenix.com>
	<E048EC3C-4640-424D-B6B1-223A6CB519D5@python.org>
	<4AD4B3CA.4000409@egenix.com>
Message-ID: <66AEE52E-608D-4A55-A85B-B95C570950D0@python.org>

On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:07 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

> Would it be reasonable to shorten that period, if the fix for the
> mentioned problem gets ready for prime time earlier ?

I think there are many 2.6.x bugs queued up for after 2.6.4 is  
released.  I'm not at all opposed to setting a date approximately 1  
month from now for the first 2.6.5 rc.  That should give people plenty  
of time to get their top fixes in.

i-like-timed-releases-ly y'rs,
-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091013/b20175f7/attachment.pgp>

From ssteinerx at gmail.com  Tue Oct 13 19:04:41 2009
From: ssteinerx at gmail.com (ssteinerX@gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:04:41 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
Message-ID: <FE461493-B4EB-4C25-B63D-1348E60E1B75@gmail.com>


On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

> On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tarek Ziad? wrote:
>
>> I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
>> various projects under win32.
>> It's planned to night.
>>
>> The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
>> projects on linux and win32 (and bith when possible)
>
> Great thanks, let us know how it goes.  If there's any question at  
> all about the fixes that have gone in since rc1, we should spin an  
> rc2.

Just curious, how big a server does the linux portion of the test  
require memory-wise?  Would, e.g. an Ubuntu 9.0x with 256MB do the job?

I ask because those types of servers are available for short-run jobs  
for pennines per hour and I would be willing to work on the code to  
fire-up, load them with the test suite, do the run, and shut them  
down.  I happen to have a bunch of code lying around for doing such  
things...

S




From skip at pobox.com  Tue Oct 13 19:33:03 2009
From: skip at pobox.com (skip at pobox.com)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:33:03 -0500
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
 final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD4B3CA.4000409@egenix.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com> <4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de>
	<4AD49631.70607@egenix.com>
	<E048EC3C-4640-424D-B6B1-223A6CB519D5@python.org>
	<4AD4B3CA.4000409@egenix.com>
Message-ID: <19156.47567.39139.469228@montanaro.dyndns.org>

    >> We don't need to wait too long for 2.6.5 though.  A few months would be
    >> appropriate.

    MAL> Would it be reasonable to shorten that period, if the fix for the
    MAL> mentioned problem gets ready for prime time earlier ?

I think it would be worthwhile to prioritize all outstanding bugs which have
been mentioned in the context of 2.6.[345] and run a bug day with the top
priority being to fix those bugs.  If that task is completed, then move onto
other stuff.  Once those primary bugs are tackled schedule a 2.6.5 release.

Skip
 

From rdmurray at bitdance.com  Tue Oct 13 19:41:49 2009
From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
 final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 at 12:57, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tarek Ziad? wrote:
>> I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
>> various projects under win32.
>> It's planned to night.
>> 
>> The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
>> projects on linux and win32 (and bith when possible)
>
> Great thanks, let us know how it goes.  If there's any question at all about 
> the fixes that have gone in since rc1, we should spin an rc2.

I always thought that the idea of a release candidate was that if there
were any fixes _at all_ that there would be a new rc.  Only when no
bugs needing fixed are found does the rc turn into the actual release.
But I understand that this is an idealized rc/release policy :)

--David (RDM)

From barry at python.org  Tue Oct 13 19:45:39 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:45:39 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
Message-ID: <39C0375D-0A34-45F8-90AA-A4AA089CC9C5@python.org>

On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:41 PM, R. David Murray wrote:

> I always thought that the idea of a release candidate was that if  
> there
> were any fixes _at all_ that there would be a new rc.  Only when no
> bugs needing fixed are found does the rc turn into the actual release.
> But I understand that this is an idealized rc/release policy :)

I'll invoke the Umbrella Rule now.  If we don't do one we'll wish we  
had.  If we do, we won't have needed it.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091013/3576ca18/attachment-0001.pgp>

From mal at egenix.com  Tue Oct 13 19:54:20 2009
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:54:20 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python
 2.6.4	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <66AEE52E-608D-4A55-A85B-B95C570950D0@python.org>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<4AD48BC4.2060809@egenix.com>	<4AD4917D.8090800@v.loewis.de>	<4AD49631.70607@egenix.com>	<E048EC3C-4640-424D-B6B1-223A6CB519D5@python.org>	<4AD4B3CA.4000409@egenix.com>
	<66AEE52E-608D-4A55-A85B-B95C570950D0@python.org>
Message-ID: <4AD4BECC.6010300@egenix.com>

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:07 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> 
>> Would it be reasonable to shorten that period, if the fix for the
>> mentioned problem gets ready for prime time earlier ?
> 
> I think there are many 2.6.x bugs queued up for after 2.6.4 is
> released.  I'm not at all opposed to setting a date approximately 1
> month from now for the first 2.6.5 rc.  That should give people plenty
> of time to get their top fixes in.
> 
> i-like-timed-releases-ly y'rs,

Agreed. Adding some pressure that way helps :-)

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Oct 13 2009)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::


   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

From guido at python.org  Tue Oct 13 20:00:27 2009
From: guido at python.org (Guido van Rossum)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:00:27 -0700
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <39C0375D-0A34-45F8-90AA-A4AA089CC9C5@python.org>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org> 
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com> 
	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net> 
	<39C0375D-0A34-45F8-90AA-A4AA089CC9C5@python.org>
Message-ID: <ca471dc20910131100s2b1c6e3as9eaa8ef124917c44@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:41 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>
>> I always thought that the idea of a release candidate was that if there
>> were any fixes _at all_ that there would be a new rc. ?Only when no
>> bugs needing fixed are found does the rc turn into the actual release.
>> But I understand that this is an idealized rc/release policy :)
>
> I'll invoke the Umbrella Rule now. ?If we don't do one we'll wish we had.
> ?If we do, we won't have needed it.

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "umbrella_rules.py", line 6, in <module>
    UmbrellaRule()
  File "unbrella_rules.py", line 4, in UmbrellaRule
    raise DuplicateRuleName('http://whatplanetisthis.com/2008/02/the-umbrella-rule-and-sharing-rules-in-general/')
DuplicateRuleName:
http://whatplanetisthis.com/2008/02/the-umbrella-rule-and-sharing-rules-in-general/

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

From barry at python.org  Tue Oct 13 20:06:29 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:06:29 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <ca471dc20910131100s2b1c6e3as9eaa8ef124917c44@mail.gmail.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
	<39C0375D-0A34-45F8-90AA-A4AA089CC9C5@python.org>
	<ca471dc20910131100s2b1c6e3as9eaa8ef124917c44@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B82471F1-DFB4-4A5A-B52E-F6CA56660A19@python.org>

On Oct 13, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

> Traceback (most recent call last):
>  File "umbrella_rules.py", line 6, in <module>
>    UmbrellaRule()
>  File "unbrella_rules.py", line 4, in UmbrellaRule
>    raise DuplicateRuleName('http://whatplanetisthis.com/2008/02/the-umbrella-rule-and-sharing-rules-in-general/')
> DuplicateRuleName:
> http://whatplanetisthis.com/2008/02/the-umbrella-rule-and-sharing-rules-in-general/

MisinformedMeteorologistRule (probably more PC than stupid weatherman  
rule :)

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091013/299606e5/attachment.pgp>

From martin at v.loewis.de  Wed Oct 14 00:10:24 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:10:24 +0800
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
 final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
Message-ID: <4AD4FAD0.1080807@v.loewis.de>


> I always thought that the idea of a release candidate was that if there
> were any fixes _at all_ that there would be a new rc.  Only when no
> bugs needing fixed are found does the rc turn into the actual release.

This was also my understanding; that's the point of calling it
"candidate". Since the code base of 2.6.4rc1 was not released as-is,
we would need to consider another candidate.

But then, Barry doesn't like release candidates in the first place.

Regards,
Martin



From ziade.tarek at gmail.com  Wed Oct 14 00:44:29 2009
From: ziade.tarek at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tarek_Ziad=E9?=)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:44:29 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <94bdd2610910131544h231d07cdqb07d3f6f65eee06d@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Tarek Ziad? <ziade.tarek at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>> At 08:27 AM 10/13/2009 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>>
>>> Are we on track to release 2.6.4 final this Sunday or do we need
>>> another rc?
>>>
>>> Yesterday, Tarek committed another setuptools related fix and said
>>> that he was going to run a bunch of build tests locally. ?Tarek, how
>>> did that go?
>>
>
> I still need to do some more tests, I didn't have time to try the
> various projects under win32.
> It's planned to night.
>
> The tests are consisting of compiling and insatling a dozain of
> projects on linux and win32 (and bith when possible)

Barry,

I'll continue my win32 smoke tests tomorrow, it's not over. So far, so good.

windows XP (vmware) - VC9 - running setup.py build+install

- zope.interface 3.5.2 + setuptools 0.6c9
- Twisted-8.2.0 + setuptools 0.6c9
- pythonwin32-314 +plain distutils: works but I had a failure on
'mc.exe' on one extension which is unrelated obviously.
  pywin32 builds fine otherwise. Still investigating. on this one

Tarek

From barry at python.org  Wed Oct 14 01:06:38 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:06:38 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD4FAD0.1080807@v.loewis.de>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
	<4AD4FAD0.1080807@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <79DD5085-8D85-43F7-87B7-B378D76ECA64@python.org>

On Oct 13, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote:

>> I always thought that the idea of a release candidate was that if  
>> there
>> were any fixes _at all_ that there would be a new rc.  Only when no
>> bugs needing fixed are found does the rc turn into the actual  
>> release.
>
> This was also my understanding; that's the point of calling it
> "candidate". Since the code base of 2.6.4rc1 was not released as-is,
> we would need to consider another candidate.
>
> But then, Barry doesn't like release candidates in the first place.

No, but let's do one anyway!

So, we can either make Sunday's release rc2 and do the final release  
one week later, or I can try to get an rc2 out in the next day or two,  
with a final release mid-next week.

Thoughts?
-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091013/7027cbcd/attachment-0001.pgp>

From martin at v.loewis.de  Wed Oct 14 04:15:55 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:15:55 +0800
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
 final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <79DD5085-8D85-43F7-87B7-B378D76ECA64@python.org>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
	<4AD4FAD0.1080807@v.loewis.de>
	<79DD5085-8D85-43F7-87B7-B378D76ECA64@python.org>
Message-ID: <4AD5345B.4080301@v.loewis.de>

> So, we can either make Sunday's release rc2 and do the final release one
> week later, or I can try to get an rc2 out in the next day or two, with
> a final release mid-next week.
> 
> Thoughts?

I won't be able to produce Windows binaries until Saturday. Now sure how
that would fit into the "within the next day or two" plan.

Regards,
Martin

From anthonybaxter at gmail.com  Wed Oct 14 04:37:16 2009
From: anthonybaxter at gmail.com (Anthony Baxter)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:37:16 +1100
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <e69d3ed20910131936w4ef49fd7oa97dd432b9920919@mail.gmail.com>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>
	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>
	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>
	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
	<4AD4FAD0.1080807@v.loewis.de>
	<79DD5085-8D85-43F7-87B7-B378D76ECA64@python.org>
	<e69d3ed20910131936w4ef49fd7oa97dd432b9920919@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e69d3ed20910131937m56648924of767bd57c2aa578@mail.gmail.com>

I strongly urge another release candidate. But then, I am not doing the
work, so take that advice for what it is...

On Oct 14, 2009 10:18 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <barry at python.org> wrote:

On Oct 13, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote: >> I always thought that
the idea of a release ...
No, but let's do one anyway!

So, we can either make Sunday's release rc2 and do the final release one
week later, or I can try to get an rc2 out in the next day or two, with a
final release mid-next week.

Thoughts?
-Barry


_______________________________________________
python-committers mailing list
python-committers at python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091014/05578d19/attachment.htm>

From barry at python.org  Wed Oct 14 04:45:43 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:45:43 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD5345B.4080301@v.loewis.de>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
	<4AD4FAD0.1080807@v.loewis.de>
	<79DD5085-8D85-43F7-87B7-B378D76ECA64@python.org>
	<4AD5345B.4080301@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <B093CC07-0455-4ABA-BB47-7DC46CEBEB6D@python.org>

On Oct 13, 2009, at 10:15 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote:

>> So, we can either make Sunday's release rc2 and do the final  
>> release one
>> week later, or I can try to get an rc2 out in the next day or two,  
>> with
>> a final release mid-next week.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I won't be able to produce Windows binaries until Saturday. Now sure  
> how
> that would fit into the "within the next day or two" plan.

That seems to argue for doing rc2 on Sunday the 18th.  If I tag the  
release some time Saturday, you could have the binaries by Sunday  
right?  Then we'll take one more week and release the final on the 25th.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091013/c97ee626/attachment.pgp>

From martin at v.loewis.de  Wed Oct 14 14:06:58 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:06:58 +0800
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
 final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <B093CC07-0455-4ABA-BB47-7DC46CEBEB6D@python.org>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
	<4AD4FAD0.1080807@v.loewis.de>
	<79DD5085-8D85-43F7-87B7-B378D76ECA64@python.org>
	<4AD5345B.4080301@v.loewis.de>
	<B093CC07-0455-4ABA-BB47-7DC46CEBEB6D@python.org>
Message-ID: <4AD5BEE2.2000405@v.loewis.de>


> That seems to argue for doing rc2 on Sunday the 18th.  If I tag the
> release some time Saturday, you could have the binaries by Sunday
> right?

Correct.

Regards,
Martin


From barry at python.org  Wed Oct 14 14:48:01 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:48:01 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] On track for Python 2.6.4
	final this Sunday?
In-Reply-To: <4AD5BEE2.2000405@v.loewis.de>
References: <430E0910-C2A1-48F7-B036-743BA5BA91A3@python.org>	<20091013145211.8DB243A4068@sparrow.telecommunity.com>	<94bdd2610910130816g42826010w3d20901683678ed3@mail.gmail.com>	<52E997AF-A050-41F4-9E2A-36282590B230@python.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910131339190.18193@kimball.webabinitio.net>
	<4AD4FAD0.1080807@v.loewis.de>
	<79DD5085-8D85-43F7-87B7-B378D76ECA64@python.org>
	<4AD5345B.4080301@v.loewis.de>
	<B093CC07-0455-4ABA-BB47-7DC46CEBEB6D@python.org>
	<4AD5BEE2.2000405@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <9185B478-1C1B-4F26-A20D-24834EBFD898@python.org>

On Oct 14, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Martin v. L?wis wrote:

>> That seems to argue for doing rc2 on Sunday the 18th.  If I tag the
>> release some time Saturday, you could have the binaries by Sunday
>> right?
>
> Correct.

Cool.  I've updated the Python Release Schedule calendar to reflect  
the new dates.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091014/914686ad/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Sat Oct 17 22:30:31 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:30:31 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] 2.6.4rc2 - issue 7149
Message-ID: <5EC1C538-E33D-4545-BF4F-544BB6B0311D@python.org>

Ronald, please let me know when you've applied the patch for bug  
7149.  That's the last thing I'm waiting on in order to tag 2.6.4rc2.   
Thanks.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091017/93a7937d/attachment.pgp>

From ronaldoussoren at mac.com  Sun Oct 18 09:09:35 2009
From: ronaldoussoren at mac.com (Ronald Oussoren)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:09:35 +0200
Subject: [python-committers] 2.6.4rc2 - issue 7149
In-Reply-To: <5EC1C538-E33D-4545-BF4F-544BB6B0311D@python.org>
References: <5EC1C538-E33D-4545-BF4F-544BB6B0311D@python.org>
Message-ID: <189AD43C-5272-49AF-ADA2-CF2FB7F5F5B6@mac.com>


On 17 Oct, 2009, at 22:30, Barry Warsaw wrote:

> Ronald, please let me know when you've applied the patch for bug  
> 7149.  That's the last thing I'm waiting on in order to tag  
> 2.6.4rc2.  Thanks.

Sorry about the late reply,  I haven't been near a computer on  
Saturday. I've applied the fix for #7149 in r75483.

Ronald
>
> -Barry
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3567 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091018/bed80131/attachment.bin>

From barry at python.org  Sun Oct 18 18:24:30 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:24:30 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] 2.6.4rc2 - issue 7149
In-Reply-To: <189AD43C-5272-49AF-ADA2-CF2FB7F5F5B6@mac.com>
References: <5EC1C538-E33D-4545-BF4F-544BB6B0311D@python.org>
	<189AD43C-5272-49AF-ADA2-CF2FB7F5F5B6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <93058EF2-04A2-426A-A2B4-973202299381@python.org>

On Oct 18, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:

> Sorry about the late reply,  I haven't been near a computer on  
> Saturday. I've applied the fix for #7149 in r75483.

Thanks!  I had a gig last night so wasn't able to tag the release, but  
I'm going to do it now.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091018/d450ecf0/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Sun Oct 18 19:03:41 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:03:41 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Fwd: [Python-checkins] r75498 -
	python/tags/r264rc2
References: <20091018165338.0D9BFE3C18@mail.wooz.org>
Message-ID: <E151B3AC-F1FF-4329-97AE-0BE10FED75A0@python.org>

2.6.4rc2 is tagged.  You know the drill :)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: barry.warsaw <python-checkins at python.org>
> Date: October 18, 2009 12:53:38 PM EDT
> To: python-checkins at python.org
> Subject: [Python-checkins] r75498 - python/tags/r264rc2
> Message-Id: <20091018165338.0D9BFE3C18 at mail.wooz.org>
>
> Author: barry.warsaw
> Date: Sun Oct 18 18:50:55 2009
> New Revision: 75498
>
> Log:
> Tagging 2.6.4rc2
>
>
> Added:
>   python/tags/r264rc2/
>      - copied from r75497, /python/branches/release26-maint/
> _______________________________________________
> Python-checkins mailing list
> Python-checkins at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-checkins

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091018/724e8bc7/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct 26 02:44:00 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:44:00 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] tagging 2.6.4
Message-ID: <4BCF12E0-481E-44A3-8D0B-C25F9343205F@python.org>

Please, no commits.  I'm tagging 2.6.4 final.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091025/418def3d/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct 26 02:49:13 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:49:13 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] Fwd: [Python-checkins] r75707 - python/tags/r264
References: <20091026014844.40D91E3922@mail.wooz.org>
Message-ID: <4E06BA1D-E3D1-47CE-8BF1-798A96EA6563@python.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: barry.warsaw <python-checkins at python.org>
> Date: October 25, 2009 9:48:44 PM EDT
> To: python-checkins at python.org
> Subject: [Python-checkins] r75707 - python/tags/r264
> Message-Id: <20091026014844.40D91E3922 at mail.wooz.org>
>
> Author: barry.warsaw
> Date: Mon Oct 26 02:48:31 2009
> New Revision: 75707
>
> Log:
> Tagging 2.6.4 final
>
>
> Added:
>   python/tags/r264/
>      - copied from r75706, /python/branches/release26-maint/
> _______________________________________________
> Python-checkins mailing list
> Python-checkins at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-checkins

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091025/5e2c337f/attachment.pgp>

From barry at python.org  Mon Oct 26 23:50:37 2009
From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:50:37 -0400
Subject: [python-committers] 2.6 tree is thawed
Message-ID: <081B636A-77E1-4F8B-BA4E-A1C773201ED2@python.org>

Thanks everyone for a well-tested release.  2.6.4 is out.  2.6.5 will  
be a "normal" release in that fixes do not need to be restricted to  
regressions.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20091026/c507b81c/attachment.pgp>