On 10 May 2014 06:53, akira 4kir4...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
May tests expect that unless they themselves start a thread then there
are no threads to worry about?
I see that some old tests are not thread-safe and I have not found it to
be explicitly mentioned in the devguide.
I've written a
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Zachary Ware
zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Zachary Ware
zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com wrote:
I updated the 2.7 buildbot scripts to pull in Tcl/Tk 8.5.15 a couple
of weeks ago (see http://bugs.python.org/issue21303), but
Brian Curtin wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Zachary Ware
zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Zachary Ware
zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com wrote:
I updated the 2.7 buildbot scripts to pull in Tcl/Tk 8.5.15 a couple
of weeks ago (see
I was investigating speeding up Mercurial's test suite (it runs ~13,000
Python processes) and I believe I've identified CPython
process/interpreter creation and destruction as sources of significant
overhead and thus a concern for any CPython user.
Full details are at [1]. tl;dr 10-18% of CPU
Hi python-dev and Raymond,
I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
documentation. Right now the warnings about CSPRNGs are hidden in the
introductory paragraph, which users are likely to skip. I agree that
there's no need to repeat the same advice twice, but I'd much
On May 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Alex Gaynor alex.gay...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
documentation. Right now the warnings about CSPRNGs are hidden in the
introductory paragraph, which users are likely to skip
In the past couple of
If you need a well defined environement, run your test in a subprocess.
Depending on the random function, your test may be run with more threads.
On BSD, it changes for example which thread receives a signal. Importing
the tkinter module creates a hidden C thread for the Tk loop.
Victor
Hello,
On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:05:54 -0700
Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com wrote:
I was investigating speeding up Mercurial's test suite (it runs ~13,000
Python processes) and I believe I've identified CPython
process/interpreter creation and destruction as sources of significant
Le 10 mai 2014 22:51, Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com a écrit :
Furthermore, Python 3 appears to be 50% slower than Python 2.
Please mention the minor version. It looks like you compared 2.7 and 3.3.
Please test 3.4, we made interesting progress on the startup time.
There is still
On Sat, 10 May 2014 14:35:38 -0700
Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
In the past couple of years, we've grown an unfortunate tendency
to fill the docs with big warning boxes (the subprocess docs are
an example of implicitly communicating that the module is dangerous
and
On 11 May 2014 07:37, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On May 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Alex Gaynor alex.gay...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
documentation. Right now the warnings about CSPRNGs are hidden in the
On May 10, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2014 07:37, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Alex Gaynor alex.gay...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
On May 10, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
It's not about being bright or not, it's about being
*willing* to eat walls of text. However pleasant it may be for some
people to *write* documentation, for most readers (and especially
non-native English readers, who
Give it up, Raymond.
On Saturday, May 10, 2014, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On May 10, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou
solip...@pitrou.netjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','solip...@pitrou.net');
wrote:
It's not about being bright or not, it's about being
*willing* to
On May 10, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10 mai 2014 22:51, Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com a écrit :
Furthermore, Python 3 appears to be 50% slower than Python 2.
Please mention the minor version. It looks like you compared 2.7 and 3.3.
Please
Hi,
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Alex Gaynor alex.gay...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
documentation. Right now the warnings about CSPRNGs are hidden
You might have forgotten to include Python-dev in the reply.
Indeed, adding it back!
Thank you for the reply. I might have expressed the question poorely. I
meant: I have a script that I know is not thread-safe but it doesn't matter
because the test itself doesn't run any threads and the
Yeah, but 200 test in 30 minutes is 9 *seconds* per test -- the Python
startup time is only a tiny fraction of that (20-40 *milliseconds*).
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On May 10, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le
On 11 May 2014 08:24, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Before proceeding further with stamping distracting security
warnings all over the module documentation, we should look
to other languages to see what others have found necessary.
This warning does not appear anywhere
Nick Coghlan, 11.05.2014 01:01:
As you point out, most language development teams do very little to try to
educate their users about security issues. The consequences of that are
clearly visible in the world around us: when security is treated as an
optional afterthought, you get widespread
Yes right, sorry I didn’t mean to imply that all that time was spent in the
Python start up time. I’ve personally never actually spent time to figure out
which part of that was slow because getting visibility inside of a
subprocess.Popen is a pain and I’m slowly trying to rewrite our tests to not
On May 10, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Total +1 on keeping these little bits around.
Since all of you want a warning, I'll add one back
but with improved wording.
I'm not all at comfortable with the wording of the second sentence.
I was the author of the
[Raymond Hettinger]
...
I'm not all at comfortable with the wording of the second sentence.
I was the author of the SystemRandom() class and I only want
to guarantee that it provides access to the operating system's
source of random numbers. It is a bold claim to guarantee that
it is
[bringing back on-list]
On 05/10/2014 07:30 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 05/10/2014 02:03 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
spam is referring to a local variable that has not been bound. This is
not an implementation
24 matches
Mail list logo
