> Is doing this sort of triage or administration work useful? Any
> recommendations on what you'd like to have happen in this sort of task?
Down-grading things that were once high-priority is certainly reasonable.
Of the very old bugs, it would be useful to find out whether they are
still reprod
Bill,
Please mail your ssh key as an attachment to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
n
--
On 8/28/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> I think it's time you get to do your own checkins. There's a protocol
> but I forget how to do it -- I think you mail your ssh key to Martin.
>
> --Gui
On 8/22/07, Alexandre Vassalotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I was fixing tests failing in the py3k branch, I found the number
> duplicate failures annoying. Often, a single bug, in an important
> method or function, caused a large number of testcase to fail. So, I
> thought of a simple mecha
Hi Bill,
I think it's time you get to do your own checkins. There's a protocol
but I forget how to do it -- I think you mail your ssh key to Martin.
--Guido
On 8/28/07, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, the patch is attached to issue 1052. I sent it out to python-dev,
> but it got b
So, the patch is attached to issue 1052. I sent it out to python-dev,
but it got blocked (too big).
http://bugs.python.org/file8352/ssl-patch-5
This contains a number of things:
1) Improve the documentation of the SSL module, with a fuller
explanation of certificate usage, another reference,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On the community trunk buildbots this checkin:
>
>1.
>
> Changed by: walter.doerwald
> Changed at: Tue 28 Aug 2007 16:38:27
> Branch: trunk
> Revision: 57620
>
> Changed files:
> * trunk/Doc/library/calendar.rst
>
> Well, that's just what you get with two independent implementations of
> a spec. We don't try to hide the differences between the sockets stack
> in Unix and Windows -- you'll just have to work around it.
No problem. But I think it's still a bug -- the "spec" (where is it?)
should say what we w
On 8/28/07, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The problematic test is this one:
> >
> > File
> > "C:\buildbot_py25\trunk.mcintyre-windows\build\lib\test\test_ssl.py", line
> > 77, in testSSLconnect
> > s.connect(("pop.gmail.com", 995))
> > File "C:\buildbot_py25\trunk.mcintyre
Sean> I kind of figure that something that's in "high" priority, that
Sean> has been sitting there for 46 months, either needs to have some
Sean> activity on it or should be pushed to a lower priority.
Note that it might have been high priority for the submitter. That doesn't
necessa
> The problematic test is this one:
>
> File "C:\buildbot_py25\trunk.mcintyre-windows\build\lib\test\test_ssl.py",
> line 77, in testSSLconnect
> s.connect(("pop.gmail.com", 995))
> File "C:\buildbot_py25\trunk.mcintyre-windows\build\lib\ssl.py", line 170,
> in connect
> if self._s
On 8/28/07, Sean Reifschneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've taken the week off and I'm trying to do something useful for Python in
> some of my time. I've basically been looking through the entries sorted by
> priority and least recent activity.
>
> Some items I've been able to do something w
I've taken the week off and I'm trying to do something useful for Python in
some of my time. I've basically been looking through the entries sorted by
priority and least recent activity.
Some items I've been able to do something with (like the "immediate"
priority %formatting bug #1467929, and th
Hello everybody.
Mark Dickinson helped a lot (*a lot*) with the decimal branch, and
we're near to pass the brand new test cases from Cowlishaw.
My original idea is to update all the documentation before merging the
branch into the trunk, but now that they changed so much, I don't know
what to do:
On the community trunk buildbots this checkin:
1.
Changed by: walter.doerwald
Changed at: Tue 28 Aug 2007 16:38:27
Branch: trunk
Revision: 57620
Changed files:
* trunk/Doc/library/calendar.rst
* trunk/Lib/calendar.py
Comments:
Fix
Looking at the buildbots today, Windows is still unhappy. It seems to
have gotten further, though.
The problematic test is this one:
File "C:\buildbot_py25\trunk.mcintyre-windows\build\lib\test\test_ssl.py",
line 77, in testSSLconnect
s.connect(("pop.gmail.com", 995))
File "C:\buildbo
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
> > This must be the call to os.system in test_ssl.py:create_cert_files().
> > It's very UNIX-y. Can any bi-platform folks suggest a good
> > alternative to
> >
> > os.system(
> > "openssl req -batch -new -x509 -days 10 -nodes -config %s "
> GNU tar is not supposed to place files outside its working directory,
> unless explicitly specified otherwise. So this is considered a security
> vulnerability.
So that's a vulnerability in GNU tar, sure - it does something that it
is not supposed to do.
But why is there also a vulnerability in
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Bill Janssen wrote:
> This must be the call to os.system in test_ssl.py:create_cert_files().
> It's very UNIX-y. Can any bi-platform folks suggest a good
> alternative to
>
> os.system(
> "openssl req -batch -new -x509 -days 10 -nodes -config %s "
> "-key
18 matches
Mail list logo
