> That's true of a certain class of bugs, probably mostly in the C code.
> I think potential security bugs in Python code will be closer to
> "regular" bug fixes.
While that may be true, I think that are much more infrequent, because
many attack paths (such as memory overwrites leading to remote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Because there won't typically be sufficient testing and release
infrastructure to allow arbitrary bug fixes to be committed on the
branch. The buildbots are turned off, and nobody tests the release
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
>> An alternative would be to keep all infrastructure up and running,
>> but that is infeasible.
>
> Or to adopt tools that help improve reliability. I'm not convinced that the
> buildbots really do that. A PQM-style
>> Because there won't typically be sufficient testing and release
>> infrastructure to allow arbitrary bug fixes to be committed on the
>> branch. The buildbots are turned off, and nobody tests the release
>> candidate, no Windows binaries are provided - thus, chances are very
>> high that a bug f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I am planning to offer a single file patch for 2.3 and 2.4. As
far as
one more 2.5 release, I don't think there's going to be many
changes
to the 2.5 branch between now and 2.6/3.0 final - alth
> > I'll put my hand up for doing the Windows build as well (the x64
> > buildbot has all the necessary bits and pieces installed). I
> > know some HP people that I could rope in to install the resulting
> > IA64 build and run rt.bat.
> Notice that we both look for somebody to build the next 2.6/
> I'll put my hand up for doing the Windows build as well (the x64
> buildbot has all the necessary bits and pieces installed). I know
> some HP people that I could rope in to install the resulting IA64
> build and run rt.bat.
Notice that we both look for somebody to build the next 2.6/3.0 betas
>>> I am planning to offer a single file patch for 2.3 and 2.4. As far as
>>> one more 2.5 release, I don't think there's going to be many changes
>>> to the 2.5 branch between now and 2.6/3.0 final - although if there
>>> is, we'll obviously have to do another release.
>
>> I would like to establ
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
If you feel the urgency of doing something now, how about *only*
providing patches for 2.5 at the moment? ActiveState might integrate
them into ActivePython; system vendors can also pick them up
(if they haven't already).
I *could* integrate patches into an ActivePython r
08 08:43
> To: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
> Cc: python-committers@python.org
> Subject: Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] next beta
>
> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> > -On [20080812 08:28], "Martin v. Löwis" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> >> F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:38 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Anthony Baxter wrote:
I am planning to offer a single file patch for 2.3 and 2.4. As far as
one more 2.5 release, I don't think there's going to be many changes
to the 2.5 branch between now and 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I am planning to offer a single file patch for 2.3 and 2.4.
It shouldn't be hard to build source tarballs, though I also don't
know if it's worth it. We should leave the option open if there's
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> -On [20080812 08:28], "Martin v. Löwis" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> For the 2.5, the challenge is to produce AMD64 and Itanium binaries,
>> using vsextcomp (plus the usual problems of collecting all the
>> necessary packages and build them first).
>
> I hav
Anthony Baxter wrote:
> I am planning to offer a single file patch for 2.3 and 2.4. As far as
> one more 2.5 release, I don't think there's going to be many changes
> to the 2.5 branch between now and 2.6/3.0 final - although if there
> is, we'll obviously have to do another release.
I would like
-On [20080812 08:28], "Martin v. Löwis" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>For the 2.5, the challenge is to produce AMD64 and Itanium binaries,
>using vsextcomp (plus the usual problems of collecting all the
>necessary packages and build them first).
I have a Windows x64 box at home. Which Visual Studio
I am planning to offer a single file patch for 2.3 and 2.4. As far as
one more 2.5 release, I don't think there's going to be many changes
to the 2.5 branch between now and 2.6/3.0 final - although if there
is, we'll obviously have to do another release.
I wouldn't be horribly surprised if more na
darn. I was hoping to get a 2.5.3 rc and final out soon. Can anyone
else build the binaries?
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It sounds like Wednesday August 13th will not be feasible, so we'll do
>> beta 3 on Wednesday August 20th. I've updated
Anthony Baxter wrote:
> darn. I was hoping to get a 2.5.3 rc and final out soon. Can anyone
> else build the binaries?
For the 2.5, the challenge is to produce AMD64 and Itanium binaries,
using vsextcomp (plus the usual problems of collecting all the
necessary packages and build them first).
Are
> It sounds like Wednesday August 13th will not be feasible, so we'll do
> beta 3 on Wednesday August 20th. I've updated both the PEP and the
> Google Calendar.
I'll be on vacation then, and not be able to produce Windows binaries
(until September 8)
Regards,
Martin
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 11, 2008, at 8:27 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Ah darn, that's a typo in the PEP. I definitely meant August 13, as
the Google calendar shows.
Do we think we can be ready for beta3 this Wednesday? If not, I'd
rather stick to a weekday releas
20 matches
Mail list logo
