May I ask a dumb question here? It isn't clear to me what to do with
these patches. For most of them there is something like, "Committed
as r54386 and r54387". I'm familiar with updating the editor Ulipad
to the latest revision, using software such as TortoiseSVN and RapidSVN.
Is that what is mea
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 342 open (-38) / 3712 closed (+54) / 4054 total (+16)
Bugs: 951 open (-14) / 6588 closed (+33) / 7539 total (+19)
RFE : 257 open (-15) / 266 closed (+13) / 523 total ( -2)
New / Reopened Patches
Kurt B. Kaiser schrieb:
> Patch / Bug Summary
> ___
>
> Patches : 380 open (-36) / 3658 closed (+65) / 4038 total (+29)
We should really try to keep the numbers in this magnitude :)
Georg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 380 open (-36) / 3658 closed (+65) / 4038 total (+29)
Bugs: 965 open ( -9) / 6555 closed (+35) / 7520 total (+26)
RFE : 272 open ( +4) / 253 closed ( +2) / 525 total ( +6)
New / Reopened Patches
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 416 open ( +8) / 3593 closed ( +8) / 4009 total (+16)
Bugs: 974 open ( +6) / 6520 closed (+15) / 7494 total (+21)
RFE : 268 open ( +1) / 251 closed ( +0) / 519 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Allow
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 408 open ( -9) / 3585 closed (+20) / 3993 total (+11)
Bugs: 968 open ( +8) / 6505 closed ( +7) / 7473 total (+15)
RFE : 267 open ( +1) / 251 closed ( +0) / 518 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Handle
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 417 open ( -6) / 3565 closed (+12) / 3982 total ( +6)
Bugs: 960 open ( -3) / 6498 closed (+19) / 7458 total (+16)
RFE : 266 open ( +6) / 251 closed ( +1) / 517 total ( +7)
New / Reopened Patches
__
stream
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 423 open ( +2) / 3553 closed ( +4) / 3976 total ( +6)
Bugs: 963 open (+20) / 6479 closed ( +8) / 7442 total (+28)
RFE : 260 open ( +0) / 250 closed ( +0) / 510 total ( +0)
New / Reopened Patches
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 421 open ( -2) / 3549 closed (+10) / 3970 total ( +8)
Bugs: 943 open (-17) / 6471 closed (+25) / 7414 total ( +8)
RFE : 260 open ( +2) / 250 closed ( +1) / 510 total ( +3)
New / Reopened Patches
Hi list,
AFAIK using file( ) to open a file is deprecated in favor of open( )
and while grepping through the stdlib I noticed a couple of occurences
of file( ) in the latest revision. I made a patch for getting rid of
them; it passes all the tests. Although the change is almost trivial,
since
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 423 open ( +2) / 3539 closed ( +9) / 3962 total (+11)
Bugs: 960 open ( -3) / 6446 closed (+20) / 7406 total (+17)
RFE : 258 open ( +3) / 249 closed ( +3) / 507 total ( +6)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Add
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 421 open ( +3) / 3530 closed ( +8) / 3951 total (+11)
Bugs: 963 open ( +4) / 6426 closed (+21) / 7389 total (+25)
RFE : 255 open ( +5) / 246 closed ( +1) / 501 total ( +6)
New / Reopened Patches
__
The
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 418 open ( +5) / 3522 closed ( +1) / 3940 total ( +6)
Bugs: 959 open (+13) / 6405 closed ( +5) / 7364 total (+18)
RFE : 250 open ( +2) / 245 closed ( -1) / 495 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
update
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 413 open ( -7) / 3521 closed (+11) / 3934 total ( +4)
Bugs: 946 open ( +2) / 6400 closed ( +9) / 7346 total (+11)
RFE : 248 open ( -1) / 246 closed ( +1) / 494 total ( +0)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Auto
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 420 open ( +6) / 3510 closed (+12) / 3930 total (+18)
Bugs: 944 open ( -5) / 6391 closed (+15) / 7335 total (+10)
RFE : 249 open ( +2) / 245 closed ( +0) / 494 total ( +2)
New / Reopened Patches
__
cp720
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 414 open ( +1) / 3498 closed ( +9) / 3912 total (+10)
Bugs: 949 open ( +6) / 6376 closed (+12) / 7325 total (+18)
RFE : 247 open ( +1) / 245 closed ( +1) / 492 total ( +2)
New / Reopened Patches
__
C99
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 413 open ( +6) / 3489 closed ( +5) / 3902 total (+11)
Bugs: 943 open ( +7) / 6364 closed ( +1) / 7307 total ( +8)
RFE : 246 open ( +0) / 244 closed ( +0) / 490 total ( +0)
New / Reopened Patches
__
popen
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 407 open ( +1) / 3484 closed ( +5) / 3891 total ( +6)
Bugs: 936 open ( +5) / 6363 closed (+14) / 7299 total (+19)
RFE : 246 open ( +1) / 244 closed ( +0) / 490 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
sys.id
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 406 open (-10) / 3479 closed (+16) / 3885 total ( +6)
Bugs: 931 open ( +1) / 6349 closed (+16) / 7280 total (+17)
RFE : 245 open ( +1) / 244 closed ( +0) / 489 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Logging
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 416 open (-14) / 3463 closed (+16) / 3879 total ( +2)
Bugs: 930 open ( +8) / 6333 closed (+17) / 7263 total (+25)
RFE : 244 open ( -1) / 244 closed ( +3) / 488 total ( +2)
New / Reopened Patches
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 430 open ( -4) / 3447 closed (+17) / 3877 total (+13)
Bugs: 922 open ( -7) / 6316 closed (+31) / 7238 total (+24)
RFE : 245 open ( +0) / 241 closed ( +1) / 486 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 434 open ( +3) / 3430 closed ( +5) / 3864 total ( +8)
Bugs: 929 open (+13) / 6285 closed (+12) / 7214 total (+25)
RFE : 245 open ( +1) / 240 closed ( +0) / 485 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
various
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 431 open ( +3) / 3425 closed ( +8) / 3856 total (+11)
Bugs: 916 open (-23) / 6273 closed (+44) / 7189 total (+21)
RFE : 244 open ( +4) / 240 closed ( +1) / 484 total ( +5)
New / Reopened Patches
__
typo in
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 428 open ( +6) / 3417 closed ( +2) / 3845 total ( +8)
Bugs: 939 open ( +6) / 6229 closed (+17) / 7168 total (+23)
RFE : 240 open ( +3) / 239 closed ( +0) / 479 total ( +3)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Speed up
Nicko wrote:
> I note that in both of those tests you didn't actually ever realise the
> concatenated string. Can you give us figures for these tests having
> forced the concatenated string to be computed?
Sure, good call. And bad news.
All these benchmarks were with functions taking N argument
Larry Hastings wrote:
> It's *slightly* slower for two:
>
> def addTwoThings(a, b):
> return a + b
> for i in range(1000):
> x = addTwoThings("aaa", "bbb")
...
> But starts paying off already, even with three:
>
> def addThreeThings(a, b, c):
> return a + b + c
> for i in range(1000
"> Forgot to mention this, in case you haven't done so post your original
> message/patch on the python-dev lists since that's where the decisions
> are made. This group is more end-user oriented.
>
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-October/thread
Larry Hastings wrote:
> That patch addressed the same general problem, but took a completely
> different approach. For the record, this patch (#980695) optimized "x
Larry,
Forgot to mention this, in case you haven't done so post your original
message/patch on the python-dev li
Istvan Albert wrote:
> I remember a similar patch from some time ago:
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046686.html
That patch addressed the same general problem, but took a completely
different approach. For the record, this patch (#980695) optimized &q
I remember a similar patch from some time ago:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046686.html
i
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
lling 'x += "a"' is the fastest way, and that's 4.4s, still beat
by the 'xappend = x.append' trick at 3.2s.
> Playing the devil's advocate here: 10M adds each of a single byte
> followed by 1 render doesn't seem very typical. How about [...]
>
s.
Another question:
How does this:
buff = ""
for datum in data:
if buff:
buff += "|"
buff += str(datum)
compare with
buff = "|".join(str(datum) for datum in data)
?
Some of us have Windows boxes and don't have the necessary MS compiler.
Is there any chance of someone making a 2.5+patch Windows binary?
Cheers,
John
> took 3343ms.
>
>
> /larry/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> You should also benchmark this against code that uses the ordinary
> append/join pattern.
Sorry, thought I had. Of course, now that the patch is up on
Sourceforce you could download it and run all the benchmarks you like.
For all the benchmarks I ran below, the
tarted.
>
>Perhaps; I've never been to PyCon, but it might be fun to give a
>presentation there. That said, it would be way more relevant if the
>patch got accepted, don'tcha think?
Not really. The principles involved are timeless, and I guarantee you a
large audience rega
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> You should also benchmark this against code that uses the ordinary
> append/join pattern. (you've posted conflicting benchmarks for 2.5,
> but if I'm trusting the benchmarks that looks more reasonable, the
> standard implementation pattern is still around 10 times faster
to PyCon, but it might be fun to give a
> presentation there. That said, it would be way more relevant if the
> patch got accepted, don'tcha think?
It's rather unlikely that something like this will ever be added to
the 2.X series. It's pretty unlikely for 3.X as well (GvR
An update: I have submitted this as a patch on SourceForge.
It's request ID #1569040.
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
I invite everyone to take it for a spin!
There are some improvements in this version. Specifically:
* Python will no longer crash if y
Congratulations on the clear way in which you have set out your proposal.
I hope that it will make its way to PEPdom.
Colin W.
Larry Hastings wrote:
> This is such a long posting that I've broken it out into sections.
> Note that while developing this patch I discovered a Subt
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 422 open ( +2) / 3415 closed ( +5) / 3837 total ( +7)
Bugs: 933 open (+18) / 6212 closed (+26) / 7145 total (+44)
RFE : 237 open ( +2) / 239 closed ( +1) / 476 total ( +3)
New / Reopened Patches
Larry Hastings wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
>>so what does the benchmark look like if you actually do this ?
>
>
> Okay, timing this:
> x = ""
> for i in range(10):
> x += "a"
> t = x[1] # forces the concat object to render
>
> The result:
> Python 2.5 release: 30.0s
> Pyth
2GB of RAM (so maybe you shouldn't even run it
:-) ) on an unpatched CPython but a lot less with your patch.
This is exactly the sort of experiment that is extremely easy
to do with PyPy. In fact, some other PyPyers and me wrote a very similar
optimization, which can be compiled in if wanted (or
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> so what does the benchmark look like if you actually do this ?
Okay, timing this:
x = ""
for i in range(10):
x += "a"
t = x[1] # forces the concat object to render
The result:
Python 2.5 release: 30.0s
Python 2.5 locally built: 30.2s
Python 2.5 concat: 4
Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> At the exact moment that the loop is done, it's a
> PyStringConcatenationObject * which points to a deep one-sided tree of
> more PyStringConcatenationObject * objects. Its ob_sval is NULL, which
> means that the first time someone asks for its value (via the macro
> PyS
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >> what's in "s" when that loop is done?
> > It's equivalent to " 'a' * 1000 ". (I shan't post it here.)
> but what *is* it ? an ordinary PyString object with a flattened buffer,
> or something else ?
At the exact moment that the loop is done, it's a
PyStringConcatenat
William Heymann wrote:
> This is a pretty small change but I would suggest xrange instead of range.
Good point! Since I was calling range() during the benchmark, it was
timed too. Switching to xrange() will mean less overhead.
I re-ran this benchmark (again):
s = ""
for i in range(10):
Larry Hastings wrote:
>> what's in "s" when that loop is done?
>
> It's equivalent to " 'a' * 1000 ". (I shan't post it here.)
but what *is* it ? an ordinary PyString object with a flattened buffer,
or something else ?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Friday 29 September 2006 08:34, Larry Hastings wrote:
> It would still blow up if you ran
> s = ""
> for i in range(1000):
> s = "a" + s
This is a pretty small change but I would suggest xrange instead of range.
That way you don't allocate that large list just to throw all the ite
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > Sure. Here are the results, but with range (1000):
> ten million? what hardware are you running this on?
Athlon 64 x2 4400+ (aka 2.2GHz), 3GB of RAM, Windows XP.
> what's in "s" when that loop is done?
It's equivalent to " 'a' * 1000 ". (I shan't post it here
Larry Hastings wrote:
>> Nice idea, though. You might also see how it does on tasks like
>>
>> s = ""
>> for i in range(10):
>> s += "a"
>
> Sure. Here are the results, but with range (1000):
ten million? what hardware are you running this on?
> Python 2.5 release: 31.0s
>
Steve Holden wrote:
> you should diff your source against the current
> SVN repository and lodge that diff as a patch on SourceForge.
Okay, I'll try to do that today.
> Your suggested bug isn't, I think a real bug in the current
> implementation because as I understan
Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote:
> Robin Becker wrote:
>> Larry Hastings wrote:
>> __
>>> THE PATCH
>>>
>>> The core concept: adding two strings together no longer returns a pure
>>> "string" object. Instead, it returns a "string c
Robin Becker wrote:
> Larry Hastings wrote:
> __
>> THE PATCH
>>
>> The core concept: adding two strings together no longer returns a pure
>> "string" object. Instead, it returns a "string concatenation" object
>> which holds references
Robin Becker wrote:
> Larry Hastings wrote:
> __
>> THE PATCH
>>
>> The core concept: adding two strings together no longer returns a pure
>> "string" object. Instead, it returns a "string concatenation" object
>> which holds references
Robin Becker wrote:
> Larry Hastings wrote:
> __
>> THE PATCH
>>
>> The core concept: adding two strings together no longer returns a pure
>> "string" object. Instead, it returns a "string concatenation" object
>> which holds references
Robin Becker wrote:
> Larry Hastings wrote:
> __
>> THE PATCH
>>
>> The core concept: adding two strings together no longer returns a pure
>> "string" object. Instead, it returns a "string concatenation" object
>> which holds references
28 Sep 2006 19:07:23 -0700, Larry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> THE BENCHMARKS
>
> Benchmark 1:
> def add(a, b, c, ... t): return a + b + c + ... + t
> for i in range(1000): add("aaa", "bbb", "ccc", ..., "ttt")
[snip]
What about "a + b"? Or "a + b + c"? Does it have a large o
Larry Hastings wrote in news:1159495643.213830.289620
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com in comp.lang.python:
> _
> THE PATCH
>
> The core concept: adding two strings together no longer returns a pure
> "string" object. Instead, it returns a "string conca
Larry Hastings wrote:
__
> THE PATCH
>
> The core concept: adding two strings together no longer returns a pure
> "string" object. Instead, it returns a "string concatenation" object
> which holds references to the two strings but does not actually
> c
Larry Hastings wrote:
> This is such a long posting that I've broken it out into sections.
> Note that while developing this patch I discovered a Subtle Bug
> in CPython, which I have discussed in its own section below.
>
[...]
> __
> THE SUBMISSION
>
> I
This is such a long posting that I've broken it out into sections.
Note that while developing this patch I discovered a Subtle Bug
in CPython, which I have discussed in its own section below.
THE OVERVIEW
I don't remember where I picked it up, but I remember reading year
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 420 open ( +4) / 3410 closed ( +2) / 3830 total ( +6)
Bugs: 915 open (+17) / 6186 closed ( +6) / 7101 total (+23)
RFE : 235 open ( +1) / 238 closed ( +0) / 473 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 419 open ( +3) / 3410 closed ( +2) / 3829 total ( +5)
Bugs: 910 open (+12) / 6185 closed ( +5) / 7095 total (+17)
RFE : 235 open ( +1) / 238 closed ( +0) / 473 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 416 open ( +3) / 3408 closed ( +1) / 3824 total ( +4)
Bugs: 898 open ( +1) / 6180 closed (+13) / 7078 total (+14)
RFE : 234 open ( +0) / 238 closed ( +0) / 472 total ( +0)
New / Reopened Patches
__
email
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 413 open ( +1) / 3407 closed (+10) / 3820 total (+11)
Bugs: 897 open ( -3) / 6167 closed (+18) / 7064 total (+15)
RFE : 234 open ( +1) / 238 closed ( +2) / 472 total ( +3)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Fix
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 412 open ( +5) / 3397 closed ( +4) / 3809 total ( +9)
Bugs: 900 open (+12) / 6149 closed ( +4) / 7049 total (+16)
RFE : 233 open ( +1) / 236 closed ( +0) / 469 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
set
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Kurt B. Kaiser wrote:
>
>> Patch / Bug Summary
>> ___
>>
>> Patches : 407 open ( +3) / 3393 closed (+17) / 3800 total (+20)
>> Bugs: 888 open (+28) / 6145 closed (+14) / 7033 total (+42)
>> RFE : 2
Kurt B. Kaiser wrote:
> Patch / Bug Summary
> ___
>
> Patches : 407 open ( +3) / 3393 closed (+17) / 3800 total (+20)
> Bugs: 888 open (+28) / 6145 closed (+14) / 7033 total (+42)
> RFE : 232 open ( +3) / 236 closed ( +1) / 468 total ( +4)
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 407 open ( +3) / 3393 closed (+17) / 3800 total (+20)
Bugs: 888 open (+28) / 6145 closed (+14) / 7033 total (+42)
RFE : 232 open ( +3) / 236 closed ( +1) / 468 total ( +4)
New / Reopened Patches
__
most
Fuzzyman wrote:
> djoefish wrote:
> > sequel to the topic "install patch on windows".
> >
> > I am currently running Python2.3 with Enthought on a windows PC. I have
> > been running into a memory problem (see
> > http://evanjones.ca/python-memory-p
djoefish wrote:
> sequel to the topic "install patch on windows".
>
> I am currently running Python2.3 with Enthought on a windows PC. I have
> been running into a memory problem (see
> http://evanjones.ca/python-memory-part3.html), and would like to
> install a pa
sequel to the topic "install patch on windows".
I am currently running Python2.3 with Enthought on a windows PC. I have
been running into a memory problem (see
http://evanjones.ca/python-memory-part3.html), and would like to
install a patch. I have read a lot about it online, but
djoefish wrote:
> Jorge Godoy wrote:
> > "djoefish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Tim Golden wrote:
> > >> djoefish wrote:
> > >> > Does anyone know how to install a patch on Winodws? For example, I want
>
Jorge Godoy wrote:
> "djoefish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Tim Golden wrote:
> >> djoefish wrote:
> >> > Does anyone know how to install a patch on Winodws? For example, I want
> >> > to install the patch 'ocmalloc-free-ar
"djoefish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim Golden wrote:
>> djoefish wrote:
>> > Does anyone know how to install a patch on Winodws? For example, I want
>> > to install the patch 'ocmalloc-free-arenas.diff' in Python 2.3.
>>
>>
Tim Golden wrote:
> djoefish wrote:
> > Does anyone know how to install a patch on Winodws? For example, I want
> > to install the patch 'ocmalloc-free-arenas.diff' in Python 2.3.
>
> You can get patch (and quite a lot besides) for win32 from
> the UnxUtils p
djoefish wrote:
> Does anyone know how to install a patch on Winodws? For example, I want
> to install the patch 'ocmalloc-free-arenas.diff' in Python 2.3.
You can get patch (and quite a lot besides) for win32 from
the UnxUtils project:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/unxutil
Does anyone know how to install a patch on Winodws? For example, I want
to install the patch 'ocmalloc-free-arenas.diff' in Python 2.3.
thanks...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 404 open ( +2) / 3376 closed (+16) / 3780 total (+18)
Bugs: 860 open ( -1) / 6131 closed (+17) / 6991 total (+16)
RFE : 229 open ( +1) / 235 closed ( +1) / 464 total ( +2)
New / Reopened Patches
__
option
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 402 open ( +6) / 3360 closed ( +6) / 3762 total (+12)
Bugs: 861 open ( -3) / 6114 closed (+27) / 6975 total (+24)
RFE : 228 open ( +2) / 234 closed ( +0) / 462 total ( +2)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Replace
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 396 open ( -5) / 3354 closed (+12) / 3750 total ( +7)
Bugs: 864 open (-32) / 6087 closed (+52) / 6951 total (+20)
RFE : 226 open ( +2) / 234 closed ( +1) / 460 total ( +3)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Move
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 401 open ( +3) / 3342 closed ( +8) / 3743 total (+11)
Bugs: 896 open ( -8) / 6035 closed (+24) / 6931 total (+16)
RFE : 224 open ( +2) / 233 closed ( +2) / 457 total ( +4)
New / Reopened Patches
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 398 open ( +5) / 3334 closed (+19) / 3732 total (+24)
Bugs: 904 open ( -4) / 6011 closed (+36) / 6915 total (+32)
RFE : 222 open ( -1) / 231 closed ( +2) / 453 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Fix for
if you just
> click on the
> above link ;-)
>
>
Thanks Fredrik,
I just uploaded the patch, hope everything is ok.
Michael
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
rs some more
> functionality (and the ScrolledGrid in Python2.5 seems to be broken)
> than the one I saw at
> http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Lib/lib-tk/Tix.py?rev=46691&view=auto
> , so I thought I could contribute a patch.
excellent idea.
> My apologies if this is a dumb quest
in Python2.5 seems to be broken)
than the one I saw at
http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Lib/lib-tk/Tix.py?rev=46691&view=auto
, so I thought I could contribute a patch.
My apologies if this is a dumb question, but I don't know how to do
that.
Any hints are appreciated
Michael
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 393 open (+15) / 3315 closed (+17) / 3708 total (+32)
Bugs: 908 open (+22) / 5975 closed (+49) / 6883 total (+71)
RFE : 223 open ( -1) / 229 closed ( +2) / 452 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 378 open ( +3) / 3298 closed (+34) / 3676 total (+37)
Bugs: 886 open (-24) / 5926 closed (+75) / 6812 total (+51)
RFE : 224 open ( +7) / 227 closed ( +7) / 451 total (+14)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Improve
Version 0.83.2 of PyDSTool has been released, and now includes a patchfor compilation of AUTO on Linux (as of 15th June).PyDSTool is an open-source project providing a range of dynamical
systems simulation and analysis tools. It supports both continuous-and discrete-time systems including ordinary
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 375 open ( -3) / 3264 closed (+26) / 3639 total (+23)
Bugs: 910 open ( +3) / 5851 closed (+20) / 6761 total (+23)
RFE : 217 open ( -1) / 220 closed ( +3) / 437 total ( +2)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Minor
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 378 open ( +0) / 3238 closed (+22) / 3616 total (+22)
Bugs: 907 open (+13) / 5831 closed (+20) / 6738 total (+33)
RFE : 218 open ( +2) / 217 closed ( +2) / 435 total ( +4)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Patch
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 378 open ( +0) / 3216 closed (+17) / 3594 total (+17)
Bugs: 894 open ( -7) / 5811 closed (+19) / 6705 total (+12)
RFE : 216 open ( +2) / 215 closed ( +1) / 431 total ( +3)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Rename
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 378 open ( +7) / 3199 closed ( +4) / 3577 total (+11)
Bugs: 901 open ( -7) / 5792 closed (+25) / 6693 total (+18)
RFE : 214 open ( +3) / 214 closed ( +2) / 428 total ( +5)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Allow
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 371 open (-12) / 3195 closed (+39) / 3566 total (+27)
Bugs: 908 open (+22) / 5767 closed ( +8) / 6675 total (+30)
RFE : 211 open ( +1) / 212 closed ( +0) / 423 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Fix
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 383 open ( -8) / 3156 closed (+14) / 3539 total ( +6)
Bugs: 886 open (-12) / 5759 closed (+28) / 6645 total (+16)
RFE : 210 open ( -5) / 212 closed ( +5) / 422 total ( +0)
New / Reopened Patches
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 391 open ( +2) / 3142 closed (+25) / 3533 total (+27)
Bugs: 898 open ( -3) / 5731 closed (+44) / 6629 total (+41)
RFE : 215 open ( +1) / 207 closed ( +1) / 422 total ( +2)
New / Reopened Patches
__
give
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 389 open ( -3) / 3117 closed (+23) / 3506 total (+20)
Bugs: 901 open ( -6) / 5687 closed (+41) / 6588 total (+35)
RFE : 214 open ( +1) / 206 closed ( +4) / 420 total ( +5)
New / Reopened Patches
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 392 open ( +6) / 3094 closed ( +5) / 3486 total (+11)
Bugs: 907 open (+18) / 5646 closed (+10) / 6553 total (+28)
RFE : 213 open ( +1) / 202 closed ( +1) / 415 total ( +2)
New / Reopened Patches
__
new exit
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 386 open ( +4) / 3089 closed (+10) / 3475 total (+14)
Bugs: 889 open ( +9) / 5636 closed (+12) / 6525 total (+21)
RFE : 212 open ( +1) / 201 closed ( +0) / 413 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
db4.4
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 382 open ( -3) / 3079 closed (+12) / 3461 total ( +9)
Bugs: 880 open (+16) / 5624 closed ( +3) / 6504 total (+19)
RFE : 211 open ( +0) / 201 closed ( +1) / 412 total ( +1)
New / Reopened Patches
__
PEP 357
201 - 300 of 391 matches
Mail list logo
