barry at python.org
Mon Nov 21 17:40:37 CET 2005
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 16:09 +0100, Armin Rigo wrote:
> It might be me, but I find it a bit odd that you didn't do anything with
> this fix.
Hi Armin. Actually it was SF #900092 that I was referring to. We fixed
this bug and those patches were applied to CVS (pre-svn conversion) for
both 2.4.2 and 2.5a1. So at least the one I was talking about are
already in there!
> At this point I'm interpreting your mail as saying that you don't really
> mind if hotshot is in the standard library or not, because you are using
> your own fixed version anyway. Nobody is proposing to wipe out hotshot
> from the face of the planet. Sorry if I sound offensive, but I'd rather
> hear the opinion of people that care about the stdlib.
I think you just misunderstood me. I definitely care about the stdlib
and no, we strongly prefer not to use some locally hacked up Python.
E.g. we were running 2.4.1 with this (and a few other patches) until
2.4.2 came out, but now we're pretty much using pristine Python 2.4.2.
So I still think hotshot can stay in the stdlib for a few releases,
unless it's totally incompatible with lsprof, and then it's worth
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20051121/c8f29d14/attachment.pgp
More information about the Python-Dev