Changes by Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +asksol, jnoller
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14404
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
There's already a bug / pending patch for this behavior here:
http://bugs.python.org/issue8713
No need to take it to -ideas.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Charles-François Natali wrote:
While I would tend to agree with you in theory - I don't think we should make
it the default - at least not without a LOT of lead time. There's a surprising
amount
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Antoine is correct, as he usually is. This is more of a documentation issue
than bug.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue13139
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Charles and Antoine's votes match my own, therefore closing the bug wont fix
--
resolution: - wont fix
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou rep...@bugs.python.org wrote:
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
I can't seem to reproduce this under 3.3. Should it be closed?
I don't think so; it's still applicable to 2.x
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
No one is currently working on a patch AFAIK
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8713
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Yes, Charles - the test is not only welcome, but needed - it just can't rely on
reading /etc/fstab ;)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11657
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Charles; you have +commit, it seems. I would welcome the patch and test (just
as long as the aforementioned reliance on /etc/fstab was removed).
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I agree derek, I think that would be a fine addition, however we lack a patch
and I don't have the current bandwidth to add it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Do things like this in the REPL are known not to work. Things are not protected
in the if __name__ block so we can import the script properly to run it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Dupe of issue10517
--
resolution: - duplicate
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10632
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Note: I noticed that there are some thread-unsafe operations (the cache that
can be modified from different threads, and thread states are modified also
from different threads). While this isn't an issue with the current cPython
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Nothing jumps out at me at initial review; I've asked other
contributors/interested parties to take a look too. Thanks a ton Antoine for
doing this work
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Agreed; I'm not personally the windows expert that should handle that
consolidation though.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11750
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Antoine Pitrou rep...@bugs.python.org wrote:
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Speaking of which, I wonder why we have both multiprocessing.Pool and
concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Antoine Pitrou rep...@bugs.python.org wrote:
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Possible plan for POSIX, where a connection uses a pipe() or socketpair():
exploit the fact that an endpoint
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I concur with Antoine. I think you're good to go Mark.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11675
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Ronald - if you're OK w/ patch 2, please commit!
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11569
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I concur with RDM. We need complex data structures, and switching to JSON
represents a non zero amount of work, isn't as fast and pickle works well. If
you want to use JSON as a transport, I would do custom subclassing
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Yeah, despite what the RFC says, the most common usage is in web clients, and
stuffing it in the email module won't be obvious to 95% of the population I
think, unless that's where the implementation lives, but we can add a doc stub
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'm fine with that tweak antoine
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10845
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Brian Thorne rep...@bugs.python.org wrote:
Brian Thorne hardb...@gmail.com added the comment:
With the example script attached I see the exception every time. On Ubuntu
10.10 with Python 2.6
Since
Changes by Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +jnoller
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue5725
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Adding, or moving, to SYSV semaphores is very low on the list of things to do.
If someone were to provide a patch, I'm sure we could consider it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Changes by Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +asksol
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10527
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
We have to add the BSD header and maintain the copyright clause on all of the
multiprocessing files. Apologies for the delay
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Can you please expand on deeply different?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8028
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Fine w/ committing this Ask.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9244
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Fine w/ committing this Ask.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7707
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Fine w/ committing this Ask as-is ask. You are correct in the original intent
of the code.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8028
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Closing per Sridhar
--
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue6645
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I doubt I, or Ask will have the time to rewrite the entire multiprocessing test
suite right now to work around the change Antoine.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Sridhar can you confirm if this is still a problem on 3.2?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue6645
Changes by Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com:
--
assignee: jnoller - nobody
keywords: +easy
nosy: +nobody
priority: normal - low
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue6269
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Antoine Pitrou rep...@bugs.python.org wrote:
Well, I'm not asking anyone to rewrite the entire multiprocessing test suite;
and, besides, I've provided a patch myself to improve it in that respect
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I can not, for the life of me, remember why ThreadPool is there, except as a
fallback. It's also not part of the documented interface as well. Additionally,
in Python 3 we now have futures
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Duplicate; 9897
--
resolution: - duplicate
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9851
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
hume; filing this again doesn't help. I closed issue 9851 as a duplicate of
this for you.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9897
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Michael Fladischer
rep...@bugs.python.org wrote:
Michael Fladischer mich...@fladi.at added the comment:
Is there any timeline on when this will be fixed? It's currently blocking
work on a python-related
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Calling it stupid doesn't incentivize me to help you, or fix it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9851
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
If we keep that behavior, the real problem here is that the
result handler hangs if the process that reserved a job is gone, which is
going to be handled
by #9205. Should we mark it as a duplicate?
I would tend to agree with your assessment
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Nice.
--
nosy: +jnoller
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9663
___
___
Python-bugs
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Thanks Freek - we're actually discussing some stuff like this in issue9205 as
well
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9592
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Florent - Are you running the script from Freek on the buildbots, or are you
just updating this bugs with other run failures? I'm having a really hard time
separating things.
--
___
Python tracker
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Is this intermittent, or consistently failing? Updating it with more buildbot
failures doesn't help.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8428
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
looks fine mark
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9586
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I agree with Antoine
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9586
___
___
Python-bugs
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Mark - did you observe the behavior in the Op? He's not stating the the code
snippet runs fine, but that the second run at the same time on windows to cause
a conflict. We need to show that either running it twice, at the same time
against
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I don't know that it's unreasonable to send that much data, but it would
certainly be slow, and I would not recommend it. Therefore, this is still on
the list for when I have time
--
___
Python
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
The backport of multiprocessing is currently stale; and there are a few bugs in
the tracker assigned to christian or myself in regards to it. If it's not too
much trouble, I'd leave this one alone until the exact future of the backport
can
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
The relative imports have been more of a pain then they've helped. I'm fine
with nuking them so long as the test suite passes.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
@Mark Yeah - I'm the current multiprocessing maintainer. If I fix it, I'll just
commit it :) I filed this as a to do against myself.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
@ray - you probably don't have the dcon binary on your path. bug.py calls a
subprocess call.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9400
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
(sorry, I thought I had replied to your comment when I hadn't!) I think we can
get away with a new optional kwarg.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9205
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
You two are bigger users of this then I currently am (the curse/blessing of
switching jobs), which is why I've let you hash it out.
Let me point out: my goal is to deal with errors in a way which does not cause
a total crash, a lockup
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Passing the references seems to be a losing game; for _handle_workers - we
only need 1 function (debug) - for others (say _join_exited_workers), we need
references to reversed/range/len.
A possible alternative is to make those threads non
Changes by Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com:
--
assignee: - jnoller
nosy: +gdb
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9244
___
___
Python
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Thank you for doing that footwork Greg, it means a lot to me. I'm leaning
towards the patch to swallow the errors - I just wanted to ponder it just a
tiny bit longer before I pull the trigger
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Greg - I asked Ask to take a look - his celery package is a huge consumer of
multiprocessing, and so I tend to run things past him as well.
That said - to both of you - the fundamental problem the shutdown patch is
trying to scratch
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Talking with Brett; the fix should be as simple as keeping a reference to the
debug function which we have in the imports. During interpreter shutdown, the
sys.modules is iterated and each module replaced with None. Since the
_handle_workers
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
thanks greg; I'm going to take a look and think about this. I'd like to resolve
bug 9207 first though
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9205
Changes by Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com:
--
assignee: - jnoller
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9205
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Ugh. I'm going to have to think about the cleanest way of handling this case of
functions vanishing from us since this is going to be more widespread inside
the code. Suggestions welcome
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
A+ for creativity; I wouldn't have thought of that ;)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9205
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'm not sure if there would still be the possibility; the thing which worries
me is the debug() function vanishing on us - something not good is happening on
interpreter shutdown.
--
___
Python
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Hi Stefan - I'm familiar with the license/etc of the original module. This bug
isn't urgent; I shot a quick email to the PSF's secretary Pat to confirm we
have a contributor agreement however
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Egad No! I gotcha. I'll find out what the deal with the contrib. agreement is.
Pretty sure we had to wait on it when we brought it in.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Greg - yeah. it's the same problem.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9207
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Greg - what platform?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue4106
___
___
Python-bugs
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Greg - this is actually a different exception then the original bug report;
could you please file a new issue with the information you've provided? I'm
going to need to find a 64bit ubuntu box as I don't have one right now
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Thanks greg; so this affects 2.6 as well (not using the backport at all)
--
assignee: - jnoller
nosy: +jnoller
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9207
Changes by Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com:
--
title: multiprocessing occasionally spits out exception during shutdown -
multiprocessing occasionally spits out exception during shutdown
(_handle_workers)
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Oh, you mean the backport from google code?
The person who stepped up to maintain that has not refreshed that in some time.
I need to decide what to do with it long term. I'm pretty sure it's badly out
of date
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Wait - so, you are pulling svn trunk, compiling and running your test with the
built python executable? I'm not following the multiprocessing-from-trunk
distinction unless you're picking the module out of the tree / compiling
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Alright, I'm fighting ubuntu 64 bit in my vmware install right now, I'll see if
I can get it up and running.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9207
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Yes; the copyright has to stay; but the license data can leave afaik.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9162
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I can confirm with a clean ubuntu 64 install, with a clean checkout of
release27 that it explodes with that exception, while the stock 2.6.5 does not.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
It does not seem to appear on OS/X 10.6.4 - so the only question is does this
show up on Ubuntu 32bit
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9207
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Correction; it can and does happen on OS/X. So, this is not a platform specific
bug.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9207
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Greg, can you comment out line 272 in Lib/multiprocessing/pool.py and tell me
if you can reproduce?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9207
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
the patch looks good to me - unless someone beats me to it, I'm going to commit
it shortly to fix 2.7
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9144
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Pushed it in r82489 - worked for me on Linux and OS/X. Please let me know if
anything else comes up.
--
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
No - I don't know of anything which would trigger this in 3.1 off the top of my
head. The performance degradation is pretty worrisome
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
This is on my wish list; but I have not had time to do it. Patch welcome.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8713
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I pretty much agree with (b) an argument - your gut instinct is correct -
there's a long standing thread in python-dev which pretty much solidified my
thinking about whether or not we need this (we do).
Any patch has to be backwards
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
When did this problem start?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8333
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
multiprocessing.Queue.Put() acts the same as Queue.put() - if the queue is
full, the put call hangs until the queue is no longer full. The process will
not exit, as the Queue is full, and it's waiting in put.
This works as designed, unless I'm
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Committed to trunk in r77794
Merged to Py3k in r77795
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue6963
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Attached is the ported patch for Python 2.7/trunk. Please review it to make
sure I didn't completely flub anything. I noticed you had forgotten the
maxtasksperchild argument in the unit test, so I added that. I also expanded
the docs a little
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'm not the subprocess owner Tarek :(
--
assignee: jnoller -
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7774
Changes by Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +jnoller
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7753
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'm working on this now; I'm going to need to port the patch to trunk before
moving forward with it. Shouldn't take me long.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'm fine with the functionality; I'm going to test it out and look at
committing it by mid-week next week. I apologize, I've been pretty maxed out.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Changes by Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com:
--
assignee: - jnoller
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7498
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Well, that's alarming. I'll back that out for now - I'm fairly disturbed
it introduced leaks that bad.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7383
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I've commented out the test (therefore, reopening this) the test
introduces a pretty bad refleak problem. Need to debug.
--
resolution: fixed - accepted
status: closed - open
___
Python tracker rep
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
I've backed it out on trunk and py3k. I've reopened the original bug to
debug the refleak caused by the test.
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
Yeah, I should have checked the tearDown stuff in the logging test suite
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue6615
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com added the comment:
AFAIK; I haven't changed anything which would introduce refleaks in the
code. So, it's going to be a matter of chasing down all of the changes
since the refleaks popped up and see which one triggered
1 - 100 of 532 matches
Mail list logo
