Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker

[PJ Eby]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Nick Coghlan  wrote:

> On 24 March 2014 20:53, "Martin v. Löwis"  wrote:
> > Both problems would be resolved by setting the tracker to read-only;
> > shutting it down is actually not necessary (although it would slightly
> > reduce our maintenance efforts).
>
> That sounds good to me.
>
> I've also filed https://bitbucket.org/pypa/setuptools/issue/174/ to
> decide on a longer term solution. If Jason decides to review/migrate
> issues, it may be necessary to turn developer write access back on to
> allow issues to be marked as closed once they have been dealt with
> appropriately.
>

Yep, looks like Jason came to the same conclusion(s) independently, but
also wants better banners on the old tracker to alert people to the move.
I guess we should move any further discussion to that ticket, since Jason's
response time is quicker there than here.  ;-)
___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker

[Nick Coghlan]

On 24 March 2014 20:53, "Martin v. Löwis"  wrote:
> Am 24.03.14 01:33, schrieb PJ Eby:
>> I think it would be a good idea to check with Jason and other PyPA
>> volunteers to see if there is anyone else who can handle the moves.  I'd
>> prefer we didn't lose the history, since my comments on those issues
>> (and the closed ones, too) often contain key information about use cases
>> and design decisions that may not be available elsewhere, even from my
>> memory.  ;-)  But, since I'm no longer in the lead on development, I
>> think it would be better for someone closer to the future of things to
>> do the prioritizing of what, if anything, to transfer as an issue or
>> keep as documentation.
>
> Yet alternatively, I could set the tracker to read-only, and keep it up
> for any foreseeable future.
>
> The reason I'm bringing this up is two-fold:
> 1. some people started using the tracker to distribute spam
> 2. some people apparently still think that the system is active,
>and continue reporting issues there.
>
> Both problems would be resolved by setting the tracker to read-only;
> shutting it down is actually not necessary (although it would slightly
> reduce our maintenance efforts).

That sounds good to me.

I've also filed https://bitbucket.org/pypa/setuptools/issue/174/ to
decide on a longer term solution. If Jason decides to review/migrate
issues, it may be necessary to turn developer write access back on to
allow issues to be marked as closed once they have been dealt with
appropriately.


-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncogh...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker

[Martin v. Löwis]

Am 24.03.14 01:33, schrieb PJ Eby:
> I think it would be a good idea to check with Jason and other PyPA
> volunteers to see if there is anyone else who can handle the moves.  I'd
> prefer we didn't lose the history, since my comments on those issues
> (and the closed ones, too) often contain key information about use cases
> and design decisions that may not be available elsewhere, even from my
> memory.  ;-)  But, since I'm no longer in the lead on development, I
> think it would be better for someone closer to the future of things to
> do the prioritizing of what, if anything, to transfer as an issue or
> keep as documentation.

Yet alternatively, I could set the tracker to read-only, and keep it up
for any foreseeable future.

The reason I'm bringing this up is two-fold:
1. some people started using the tracker to distribute spam
2. some people apparently still think that the system is active,
   and continue reporting issues there.

Both problems would be resolved by setting the tracker to read-only;
shutting it down is actually not necessary (although it would slightly
reduce our maintenance efforts).

Regards,
Martin


___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker

[PJ Eby]

I think it would be a good idea to check with Jason and other PyPA
volunteers to see if there is anyone else who can handle the moves.  I'd
prefer we didn't lose the history, since my comments on those issues (and
the closed ones, too) often contain key information about use cases and
design decisions that may not be available elsewhere, even from my memory.
;-)  But, since I'm no longer in the lead on development, I think it would
be better for someone closer to the future of things to do the prioritizing
of what, if anything, to transfer as an issue or keep as documentation.


On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:00 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:

> Am 23.03.14 18:30, schrieb PJ Eby:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:55 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"  > > wrote:
> >
> > We are still hosting a roundup installation for setuptools,
> > at http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/.
> >
> > Is this still needed? If not: what should we do with it?
> >
> >
> > I think probably the remaining issues need to be moved to Bitbucket
> > (unless they're already addressed in later setuptools versions), and the
> > tracker closed.  At this point, I think it's safe to say that the 0.6
> > line isn't getting any more changes; persons and organizations using
> > older versions of Python will have to take 0.6 as it is, or upgrade.
>
> Would you volunteer to move them? Alternatively, I could close them all
> with an automatic message saying that they should re-report them if the
> issue still exists.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
>
>
___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker

[Martin v. Löwis]

Am 23.03.14 18:30, schrieb PJ Eby:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:55 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"  > wrote:
> 
> We are still hosting a roundup installation for setuptools,
> at http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/.
> 
> Is this still needed? If not: what should we do with it?
> 
> 
> I think probably the remaining issues need to be moved to Bitbucket
> (unless they're already addressed in later setuptools versions), and the
> tracker closed.  At this point, I think it's safe to say that the 0.6
> line isn't getting any more changes; persons and organizations using
> older versions of Python will have to take 0.6 as it is, or upgrade.

Would you volunteer to move them? Alternatively, I could close them all
with an automatic message saying that they should re-report them if the
issue still exists.

Regards,
Martin


___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker

[PJ Eby]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:55 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:

> We are still hosting a roundup installation for setuptools,
> at http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/.
>
> Is this still needed? If not: what should we do with it?
>
>
I think probably the remaining issues need to be moved to Bitbucket (unless
they're already addressed in later setuptools versions), and the tracker
closed.  At this point, I think it's safe to say that the 0.6 line isn't
getting any more changes; persons and organizations using older versions of
Python will have to take 0.6 as it is, or upgrade.
___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

[Distutils] setuptools tracker

[Martin v. Löwis]

We are still hosting a roundup installation for setuptools,
at http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/.

Is this still needed? If not: what should we do with it?

Regards,
Martin
___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker notifications

[Martin v. Löwis]

> Any chance the mail subject could be prefixed with [setuptools] to make
> it clear which tracker it came from?

If you want to filter them out (or in a separate folder), I recommend to
set your filter for the X-Roundup-Name header.

Adding something to the subject is tricky, IIRC.

Regards,
Martin
___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker notifications

[Chris Withers]

Jeff Rush wrote:

I'm happy with the existing arrangement - I think sending low-traffic
bug reports to a separate list is a bad idea because few folk will
actually see them. 


Agreed.

Any chance the mail subject could be prefixed with [setuptools] to make 
it clear which tracker it came from?


cheers,

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker "needpatch" keyword, tests, etc.

[Tarek Ziadé]

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~setuptools/setuptools-test/main
>>
>
> My initial reaction is that it's off to a good start, but the tests
> themselves seem rather shallow; more like "smoke tests" (i.e., turn it on
> and see if smoke comes out) than functional tests.


Right, they are not detailed at all at this point

>
>
> I'm thinking it might help to use the setuptools.sandbox facility to log
> files created, deleted, modified, etc. by the process.  That would probably
> be a better test of what has/hasn't been done than using ellipses on the
> logs, which is order-dependent as well as having the ability to skip lines
> where the wrong thing is being done, etc.  The way things are being done
> now, they probably won't be able to test some of the things that are most
> likely to break (i.e., the complexities of easy_install).
>
> (Probably in order to do that I'll need to add a new sandboxing class that
> creates a "mock" filesystem and allows before/after expectations to be set.)



Here's a proposal that could be done in a new 'test' sprint I guess :

- add something in the sandbox to record what is being done underneath
(using for example what Ian has suggested - ScriptTest)
- change our doctests so they actually use the recorded info : files
created, removed, modified + return code maybe (but not the stdout which
vary too much from one system to another)

At least Chris Galvan and I are interested in helping in this.

Tarek
___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker "needpatch" keyword, tests, etc.

[Ian Bicking]

Phillip J. Eby wrote:

At 10:32 AM 8/8/2008 -0500, Chris Galvan wrote:

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Hello all.  I had some spare time the other day and went through the 
tracker, reclassifying a few things and marking some with a 
"needpatch" keyword.  The ones marked "needpatch" vary from things I 
have no idea what to do with, to ones where I've practically spelled 
out the needed patch in the tracker.


Issues with patches that passed my initial review have been marked 
"in-progress"; these could use some testing before check-in.  At this 
point, I haven't had an opportunity to review the results of the test 
sprint that was done; if somebody could throw that up as a patch on 
the tracker, or at least repost a link to where I can find that 
stuff, that would help.
The work done on the test sprint is hosted in this bzr branch.  We 
wanted to get your feedback on what had been done so far to make sure 
we were heading in the right direction.


https://code.launchpad.net/~setuptools/setuptools-test/main


My initial reaction is that it's off to a good start, but the tests 
themselves seem rather shallow; more like "smoke tests" (i.e., turn it 
on and see if smoke comes out) than functional tests.


I'm thinking it might help to use the setuptools.sandbox facility to log 
files created, deleted, modified, etc. by the process.  That would 
probably be a better test of what has/hasn't been done than using 
ellipses on the logs, which is order-dependent as well as having the 
ability to skip lines where the wrong thing is being done, etc.  The way 
things are being done now, they probably won't be able to test some of 
the things that are most likely to break (i.e., the complexities of 
easy_install).


(Probably in order to do that I'll need to add a new sandboxing class 
that creates a "mock" filesystem and allows before/after expectations to 
be set.)


You could also use ScriptTest: http://pythonpaste.org/scripttest/ -- it 
doesn't make any attempt to mock anything out, but it does keep track of 
what a command does.  For testing PoachEggs 
(https://svn.openplans.org/svn/PoachEggs/trunk/poacheggs-tests) I'm 
creating a scratch virtualenv for the test, then running things inside 
there.


--
Ian Bicking : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://blog.ianbicking.org
___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker "needpatch" keyword, tests, etc.

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 10:32 AM 8/8/2008 -0500, Chris Galvan wrote:

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Hello all.  I had some spare time the other day and went through 
the tracker, reclassifying a few things and marking some with a 
"needpatch" keyword.  The ones marked "needpatch" vary from things 
I have no idea what to do with, to ones where I've practically 
spelled out the needed patch in the tracker.


Issues with patches that passed my initial review have been marked 
"in-progress"; these could use some testing before check-in.  At 
this point, I haven't had an opportunity to review the results of 
the test sprint that was done; if somebody could throw that up as a 
patch on the tracker, or at least repost a link to where I can find 
that stuff, that would help.
The work done on the test sprint is hosted in this bzr branch.  We 
wanted to get your feedback on what had been done so far to make 
sure we were heading in the right direction.


https://code.launchpad.net/~setuptools/setuptools-test/main


My initial reaction is that it's off to a good start, but the tests 
themselves seem rather shallow; more like "smoke tests" (i.e., turn 
it on and see if smoke comes out) than functional tests.


I'm thinking it might help to use the setuptools.sandbox facility to 
log files created, deleted, modified, etc. by the process.  That 
would probably be a better test of what has/hasn't been done than 
using ellipses on the logs, which is order-dependent as well as 
having the ability to skip lines where the wrong thing is being done, 
etc.  The way things are being done now, they probably won't be able 
to test some of the things that are most likely to break (i.e., the 
complexities of easy_install).


(Probably in order to do that I'll need to add a new sandboxing class 
that creates a "mock" filesystem and allows before/after expectations 
to be set.)


___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] setuptools tracker "needpatch" keyword, tests, etc.

[Chris Galvan]

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Hello all.  I had some spare time the other day and went through the 
tracker, reclassifying a few things and marking some with a 
"needpatch" keyword.  The ones marked "needpatch" vary from things I 
have no idea what to do with, to ones where I've practically spelled 
out the needed patch in the tracker.


Issues with patches that passed my initial review have been marked 
"in-progress"; these could use some testing before check-in.  At this 
point, I haven't had an opportunity to review the results of the test 
sprint that was done; if somebody could throw that up as a patch on 
the tracker, or at least repost a link to where I can find that stuff, 
that would help.
The work done on the test sprint is hosted in this bzr branch.  We 
wanted to get your feedback on what had been done so far to make sure we 
were heading in the right direction.


https://code.launchpad.net/~setuptools/setuptools-test/main



All of this is with an eye to releasing an 0.6 final in the near 
future; sometime this month I'd guess/hope, depending on how my other 
projects are going.
That would be awesome.  To reach this goal, it would really help to get 
more tests written so that patches can be tested quicker and with more 
certainty that they haven't broken anything.


-- Chris Galvan


___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

[Distutils] setuptools tracker "needpatch" keyword, tests, etc.

[Phillip J. Eby]

Hello all.  I had some spare time the other day and went through the 
tracker, reclassifying a few things and marking some with a 
"needpatch" keyword.  The ones marked "needpatch" vary from things I 
have no idea what to do with, to ones where I've practically spelled 
out the needed patch in the tracker.


Issues with patches that passed my initial review have been marked 
"in-progress"; these could use some testing before check-in.  At this 
point, I haven't had an opportunity to review the results of the test 
sprint that was done; if somebody could throw that up as a patch on 
the tracker, or at least repost a link to where I can find that 
stuff, that would help.


All of this is with an eye to releasing an 0.6 final in the near 
future; sometime this month I'd guess/hope, depending on how my other 
projects are going.


___
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig