[Python-Dev] Python 2.6.3

[Ronald Oussoren]

On 10 Sep, 2009, at 18:23, Ned Deily wrote:

> In article <9D506035-7C2D-4929-A134-E88EEB7B7D9E at python.org>,
> Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 9, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>>
>>> In article <11A6545D-7204-4F61-B55B-1CC77CB5645E at python.org>,
>>> Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
>>>> I still want to release by the 25th, but I'd be willing to move the
>>>> rc
>>>> to Monday the 21st.  We're really just trying to avoid a brown bag
>>>> moment, so that should give us enough time to double check the
>>>> releases.
>>>
>>> The recent release of OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) has triggered a fair
>>> amount of 2.6 bug tracker activity, since 10.6 now includes 2.6
>>> (2.6.1)
>>> and a 64-bit version at that.   A number of patches have either just
>>> been checked-in over the past couple of weeks or are getting some
>>> exposure before check-in.  Given the timing and the (appropriate)
>>> infrequency of 2.6.x releases, I think it would be unfortunate to  
>>> push
>>> 2.6.3 out the door without ensuring that it works well on 10.6.
>>> Therefore, I propose that 2.6.3 should have 10.6 compatibility as a
>>> "release goal".
>>>
>>> Without trying to put Ronald on the spot (too much!), it would be a
>>> good
>>> idea to get his assessment where things stand wrt 2.6 on 10.6 before
>>> setting a final release date.
>>
>> I'm hoping that Python won't have any issues building and running on
>> 10.6, but I don't have it yet so I can't personally test it out.
>>
>> How would you quantify "works well"?  Do you have any thoughts on
>> tests you'd run other than the standard test suite?  If 2.6.3 is  
>> shown
>> to pass its test suite on 10.5.x, is that good enough?  Are the
>> specific bug fixes necessary for 10.6?
>
> Running the standard test suite on 10.6 and seeing no regressions
> compared to the same suite on 10.5.x seems a reasonable necessary
> requirement.  We have the resources to do that.  Beyond that, as  
> Ronald
> suggests, I think it important to go through the open issues in the  
> next
> couple of days and identify and flag any potential release-blockers
> (besides the IDLE problem already mentioned).

The IDLE issue is IMHO a release blocker, as is issue 6851.

>
> One other open issue is 64-bit support in the python.org OS X  
> installer.
> There have been discussions and requests in the past and, with Apple
> providing 64-bit out of the box in 10.6, it seems like it's time to
> provide something on python.org as well.   One option: continue to
> provide a 32-bit only installer for ppc and i386 for 10.3.9 and beyond
> and add a second installer image with 3-way (ppc, i386, x86_64 but no
> ppc64) 32/64 for 10.5 and beyond.   Ronald, is that your current
> thinking?

64-bit support can wait until after 2.6.3 is released. I need time to  
work out what's needed go create a good installer (and not just  
running the current build-installer.py script because that includes to  
much for a binary that doesn't run on 10.3.9). That won't happen  
before 2.6.3 is released because I'm too thinly stretched even without  
working on that.

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-dev/attachments/20090915/47226121/attachment.bin>