Jesús Cea Avión [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
This issue is closed but rejected. Should it be marked as accepted
or fixed?.
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3769
___
Changes by Barry A. Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
resolution: rejected - fixed
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3769
___
___
Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I accidentally filed this twice, and the code review is on the other
issue, so setting the superceder and closing (although the patch has not
been applied yet).
--
resolution: fixed - duplicate
superseder: - deprecate bsddb/dbhash in
Jesús Cea Avión [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brett Cannon wrote:
Also, the reason for removal may yet disappear
if jcrea steps in an continues to make updates.
OK, but none of his changes have received a code review, so if we are
going
Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
I think this should be deferred to Py3.1.
This decision was not widely discussed and I think it likely that some
users will
be surprised and dismayed. The release
candidate seems to be the wrong time to
yank this
Jesús Cea Avión [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nick Coghlan wrote:
While that will still be visible to some degree due to the presence of
the 2.x version of the bsddb code in Python 2.6, I don't think it will
be quite the same as it would
Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
me If not, could a dbm.sqlite module be written for 2.7 and 3.1 which
me can fill that role?
http://bugs.python.org/issue3783
S
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3769
New submission from Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Attached is a patch that deprecates bsddb for removal in 3.0.
--
components: Library (Lib)
files: deprecate_bsddb.diff
keywords: needs review, patch, patch
messages: 72431
nosy: brett.cannon
priority: release blocker
severity: normal
Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Remind me why we want to get rid of bsddb?
The reasons are enumerated in PEP 3108.
Skip
--
nosy:
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I thought someone stepped forward to maintain this package.
--
nosy: +rhettinger
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3769
___
Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Also see this:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-September/014712.html
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3769
___
Changes by Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file11366/deprecate_bsddb.diff
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3769
___
Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
New patch to also deprecated dbhash.
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file11367/deprecate_bsddb.diff
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3769
Changes by Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3769
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I think this should be deferred to Py3.1.
This decision was not widely discussed and I think it likely that some
users will be surprised and dismayed. The release candidate seems to be
the wrong time to yank this out (in part because of
Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this should be deferred to Py3.1.
This decision was not widely discussed and I think it likely that some users
will
be surprised and dismayed.
Perhaps, but
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I think this should be deferred to Py3.1.
This decision was not widely discussed and I think
it likely that some users will be surprised and dismayed.
Perhaps, but that could be said about almost any module
that has been removed
Changes by Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
priority: release blocker - deferred blocker
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3769
___
Barry A. Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081362.html
Guido states his opinion in no uncertain terms regarding pybsddb in
Python 3.0:
+1. In my recollection maintaining bsddb has been nothing but trouble
right from the start
Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Is there going to be a dbm.* module which is supported across all the core
platforms: Windows, Mac Unix? I don't count dumbdbm as really all that
useful, especially given the caveats listed in the module docstring.
If not, could a dbm.sqlite
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Since SQLite has a blob type and allows text keys, we should be able to
make a substitute that doesn't depend on bsddb.
Against, recommend holding-off on removal until 3.1 so we can bake in a
reasonable substitute (esp. for shelves where
21 matches
Mail list logo
