Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
Guido van Rossum wrote: Sure, we lose the ability to add last-minute -3 warnings. But I think that's a pretty minor issue (and those warnings have a tendency to subtly break things occasionally, so we shouldn't do them last-minute anyway). Hey, if we catch all the things that need -3 warnings now, what are we meant to add in 2.7? :) +1 for a 2.6 rc and another 3.0 beta. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raymond With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite Raymond to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves Raymond won't become useless on Windows builds. My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for 2.7 and 3.1. I'm a bit less sure about adding dbm.sqlite. Unless Josiah's version is substantially faster and more robust I think my version needs to cook a bit longer. I'm just not comfortable enough with SQLite to pronounce my version fit enough. I only intended it as a proof-of-concept, and it's clear it has some shortcomings. Given that the *API* is fixed though, it is probably better to have the module present in 3.0 and bring it back to the main line in 2.7. If any absolute clangers from a performance/stability point of view get past Raymond (and everyone else with an interest in this) then they can be addressed in 3.0.1 in a few months time. Whereas if we leave the module out entirely, then 3.0 users are completely out of luck until 3.1 (or have to download and possibly build pybsddb). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do not have a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have high hopes for rectifying all of these problems in the next day or two. I propose that we push the entire schedule back two weeks. This means that the planned rc2 on 17-September becomes our rc1. The planned final release for 01-October becomes our rc2, and we release the finals on 15- October. - -Barry Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do care about it having 2.6. Given that 2.6 is going to be more widely adopted and used by both the community and OS distributors, I'm +1 on splitting the releases as well. -Jesse ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do care about it having 2.6. I've talked with my contact at MajorOS Vendor (tm) and, as much as he can say, he would be fine with this. They're having problems getting 3rd party modules to build against 3.0 anyway, but if we can release a very solid 2.6 by the 1-Oct deadline, I would support splitting the releases. I really don't like doing this, but if we can get 2.6 out on time, and 3.0 doesn't lag too far behind, I'm okay with it. We'll have to abbreviate the release schedule though, so everyone should concentrate on fixing the 2.6 showstoppers. I think we need to get 2.6rc1 out this week, followed by 2.6rc2 next Wednesday as planned and 2.6final on 1-October. I've shuffled the tracker to reduce all 3.0-only bugs to deferred blocker, and to increase all 2.6 deferred blockers to release blockers. There are 11 open blocker issues for 2.6: 3629 Python won't compile a regex that compiles with 2.5.2 and 30b2 3640 test_cpickle crash on AMD64 Windows build 3777 long(4.2) now returns an int 3781 warnings.catch_warnings fails gracelessly when recording warnings but... 2876 Write UserDict fixer for 2to3 2350 'exceptions' import fixer 3642 Objects/obmalloc.c:529: warning: comparison is always false due... 3617 Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows... 3657 pickle can pickle the wrong function 1868 threading.local doesn't free attrs when assigning thread exits 3809 test_logging leaving a 'test.blah' file behind If we can close them by Wednesday or Thursday, and the 2.6 bots stay green, I will cut the 2.6rc1 release this week and the 2.6rc2 and final on schedule. If you're on board with this, please do what you can to resolve these open issues. As always, I'm on irc if you need to discuss anything. Cheers, - -Barry -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSMZ3V3EjvBPtnXfVAQKLbAP6A9b0WBB0H/ONZbKie2TazK/qYLthYnZQ iIpfJ2UboOA7dJ/ueXIsD413oI8GTbUOsUlJOWbSzAfJ6oBuPHrjr4IFRCZhchKG lwViDaK/7aWgIusGFpt6y/SgwJBU531wb7o3Lx/P6rLx5Wh5Nr+tvhngt0WkSMSj WtCsy3mmgmQ= =3HdI -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0 beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule is that we will be included in OSX. That's a much bigger deal for 2.6 than for 3.0 (I doubt that Apple would add two versions anyway). The MajorOS Vendor (tm) may be willing to ship a 3.0 beta if it's far enough along, though not as the primary Python version. They clearly want 2.6 for that. - -Barry -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSMZ4cXEjvBPtnXfVAQL4ygP/fLILvf3NhvmN3R2T7htGm08xt/bOBYGt +BDrV4rapS4j3jo2Cx+McEdjJZCdq9x7BIaTN+4ITwq02LEY5fmhp6NkhzE1dlnq qdgBq8x/Z4AnsxfydtqYrPhrzLWPpdEZElgll5FB6Dj6XIA7cB8tuds2cE7+OXJI Guom1Y0k6Ao= =u4FB -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: [Guido van Rossum] Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0 beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule is that we will be included in OSX. That's a much bigger deal for 2.6 than for 3.0 (I doubt that Apple would add two versions anyway). With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves won't become useless on Windows builds. That seems risky to me. First, it's a new feature. Second, it will be largely untested code. I would much rather see dbm.sqlite released as a separate package for possible integration into the core for 3.1. - -Barry -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSMZ40XEjvBPtnXfVAQK2WQP/e3N2rYD2rbsoynEnXvAjzF8lPoPRFDvl hbjERsbB93uSoBPHaTdjtXnW+InC0W4GC5ogHF9wARbzYTJaxx09WmjihX+PvgsW JhXwLpG3gtyclfqSAF8MWZHc4UnKnyUt5UgYBlZrzT0z7FhWmelUPl8QhS8/2n9L oT3qX8eLabI= =Zu70 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: Even if I can't contribute very much at the moment, I'm still +1 to that. I doubt Python would get nice publicity if we released a 3.0 but had to tell everyone, but don't really use it yet, it may still contain any number of showstoppers. I completely agree. We should not release anything that's not ready. Assuming that we all agree that 2.6 is much closer to being ready, that gives us two options: delay 2.6 to coincide with 3.0 or split the releases. The latter seems like the wisest choice to meet our goals. - -Barry -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSMZ5L3EjvBPtnXfVAQJwSQP/U7FFFI8ao5Xesf6F3QFIUMYFeISrlhof 9ynkQXAskUMelAfayGMSd2nD2+buXA7gyBWplAAEF2rtLhZ3N0+zeh/2HnqcY0b9 EtUM5shAIMlb2948IMoXlxSMplH5auBHMLYFnuPAIH9ERXsGVfyihLnUarAfzmT+ XrWfjrU62TA= =CUR4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
Barry 3777 long(4.2) now returns an int Looks like Amaury has already taken care of this one. Skip ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
Barry Warsaw wrote: On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0 beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule is that we will be included in OSX. That's a much bigger deal for 2.6 than for 3.0 (I doubt that Apple would add two versions anyway). The MajorOS Vendor (tm) may be willing to ship a 3.0 beta if it's far enough along, though not as the primary Python version. They clearly want 2.6 for that. Given that the sum total of actual Python 3.0 programs is currently pretty close to zero, I don't really see any reason for *any* OS vendor (even Linux distros) to be including a 3.0 interpreter in their base install at this point in time. I personally expect it to stay in the optional extras category until some time next year. Pessimists-have-more-opportunities-to-be-pleasantly-surprised'ly, Nick. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
Barry Warsaw wrote: 3781 warnings.catch_warnings fails gracelessly when recording warnings I just assigned this one to myself - I'll have a patch up for review shortly (the patch will revert back to having this be a regression test suite only feature). Cheers, Nick. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do not have a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have high hopes for rectifying all of these problems in the next day or two. I propose that we push the entire schedule back two weeks. This means that the planned rc2 on 17-September becomes our rc1. The planned final release for 01-October becomes our rc2, and we release the finals on 15-October. - -Barry Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do care about it having 2.6. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do not have a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have high hopes for rectifying all of these problems in the next day or two. I propose that we push the entire schedule back two weeks. This means that the planned rc2 on 17-September becomes our rc1. The planned final release for 01-October becomes our rc2, and we release the finals on 15-October. - -Barry Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do care about it having 2.6. I'm not really sure what good that would do us unless we wanted to bring 3.0 back to the beta phase and continue to work on some larger issues with it. I also suspect doing two separate, but close together final releases would be more stressful than having them in lock and step. Just my pocket change, though. -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson There's no place like 127.0.0.1. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st goal. We have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do not have a beta3 Windows installer and I don't have high hopes for rectifying all of these problems in the next day or two. I propose that we push the entire schedule back two weeks. This means that the planned rc2 on 17-September becomes our rc1. The planned final release for 01-October becomes our rc2, and we release the finals on 15-October. - -Barry Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do care about it having 2.6. I'm not really sure what good that would do us unless we wanted to bring 3.0 back to the beta phase and continue to work on some larger issues with it. I also suspect doing two separate, but close together final releases would be more stressful than having them in lock and step. Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0 beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule is that we will be included in OSX. That's a much bigger deal for 2.6 than for 3.0 (I doubt that Apple would add two versions anyway). Just my pocket change, though. -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson There's no place like 127.0.0.1. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
Guido van Rossum wrote: Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0 beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule is that we will be included in OSX. That's a much bigger deal for 2.6 than for 3.0 (I doubt that Apple would add two versions anyway). I'm on Guido's side. Ok, from the marketing perspective it's a nice catch to release 2.6 and 3.0 on the same day. Python 2.6.0 and 3.0.0 released makes a great headline. But given the chance to get Python 2.6 into the next OSX version it's fine with me to release 3.0 a couple of weeks later. Python 3.0 is not ready for a release candidate. We just fixed a bunch of memory leaks and critical errors over the last week. And don't forget Windows! The Windows builds didn't get thorough testing because we didn't provide our tests with official builds. I'm +1 for a 2.6rc and another beta of 3.0 Christian ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
Christian Heimes lists at cheimes.de writes: Ok, from the marketing perspective it's a nice catch to release 2.6 and 3.0 on the same day. Python 2.6.0 and 3.0.0 released makes a great headline. It's not only the marketing. Having both releases in lock step means the development process is synchronized between trunk and py3k, that there is no loss of developer focus, and that merges/backports happen quite naturally. But I don't think it's an overwhelming argument either. I would value it at around 50 euro cents, not even the price of a good croissant ;-) Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Heimes lists at cheimes.de writes: Ok, from the marketing perspective it's a nice catch to release 2.6 and 3.0 on the same day. Python 2.6.0 and 3.0.0 released makes a great headline. It's not only the marketing. Having both releases in lock step means the development process is synchronized between trunk and py3k, that there is no loss of developer focus, and that merges/backports happen quite naturally. I think that we've reached the point where very few things are merged from 2.6 to 3.0 -- I see a lot more block commits than merge commits lately. Also, the added activity in 3.0 doesn't involve merges at all, because it's all 3.0-specific. Sure, we lose the ability to add last-minute -3 warnings. But I think that's a pretty minor issue (and those warnings have a tendency to subtly break things occasionally, so we shouldn't do them last-minute anyway). But I don't think it's an overwhelming argument either. I would value it at around 50 euro cents, not even the price of a good croissant ;-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
Antoine Pitrou writes: It's not only the marketing. Having both releases in lock step means the development process is synchronized between trunk and py3k, that there is no loss of developer focus, and that merges/backports happen quite naturally. As usual, in theory precision is infinite, but in engineering practice it's fuzzy. Lock step doesn't mean as fine as you can split a second; for 2.6/3.0 a couple of weeks separation is not going to matter. The important thing is to get right back on schedule for releasing 2.7/3.1 together (if that's the plan). Split-second precision does matter for marketing, though.wink ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
[Guido van Rossum] Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0 beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule is that we will be included in OSX. That's a much bigger deal for 2.6 than for 3.0 (I doubt that Apple would add two versions anyway). With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves won't become useless on Windows builds. Raymond ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Guido van Rossum] Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0 beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean up, for example! And apparently the benefit of releasing on schedule is that we will be included in OSX. That's a much bigger deal for 2.6 than for 3.0 (I doubt that Apple would add two versions anyway). With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves won't become useless on Windows builds. So get started already! :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Proposed revised schedule
Raymond With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite Raymond to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves Raymond won't become useless on Windows builds. My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for 2.7 and 3.1. I'm a bit less sure about adding dbm.sqlite. Unless Josiah's version is substantially faster and more robust I think my version needs to cook a bit longer. I'm just not comfortable enough with SQLite to pronounce my version fit enough. I only intended it as a proof-of-concept, and it's clear it has some shortcomings. Skip ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
