On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 22:09:03 -0600
Davin Potts wrote:
> I have done what I was asked to do: I added tests and docs in a new
> PR (GH-11816) as of Feb 10.
>
> Since that time, the API has matured thanks to thoughtful feedback
> from a number of active reviewers. At present, we appear to have
> s
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:09 AM Davin Potts <
python+python_...@discontinuity.net> wrote:
> I have done what I was asked to do: I added tests and docs in a new
> PR (GH-11816) as of Feb 10.
>
> Since that time, the API has matured thanks to thoughtful feedback
> from a number of active reviewers.
I have done what I was asked to do: I added tests and docs in a new
PR (GH-11816) as of Feb 10.
Since that time, the API has matured thanks to thoughtful feedback
from a number of active reviewers. At present, we appear to have
stabilized around an API and code that deserves to be exercised
furt
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:51 PM Giampaolo Rodola'
wrote:
>
> Unless they are already there (I don't know) it would be good to have a
> full set of unit-tests for all the register()ed types and test them against
> SyncManager and SharedMemoryManager. That would give an idea on the real
> interchan
Davin,
I am not familiar with the multiprocessing module, so take the following
with a big grain of salt. I took a look at the PR, then I got an idea of
how multiprocessing module is organized by reading the doc. Here's some
food for thought in terms of API reorganization.
SharedMemoryManager, Sha
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 05:17, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> My gut reaction is that we shouldn't revert. However, looking at
> the changes, it seems 'multiprocessing.shared_memory' could be an
> external extension package that lives in PyPI. It doesn't require
> changes to other interpreter internals
On 02/05/2019 11:35 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
How about we stop using a highly public forum to pile up on Davin (being the
subject of a thread like this can be a soul crushing experience).
Thank you for the reminder.
Right now, he could really use some help and support from everyone on
I wrote:
> Could we somehow mark these APIs as experimental in 3.8?
It seems the change "e5ef45b8f519a9be9965590e1a0a587ff584c180" the
one we are discussing. It adds two new files:
Lib/multiprocessing/shared_memory.py
Modules/_multiprocessing/posixshmem.c
It doesn't introduce new C APIs. S
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>
> The main problem I have with this PR is that it seems to introduce 8 brand
> new APIs, but since there is no doc, docstrings or tests it's unclear which
> ones are supposed to be used, how or whether they are supposed to supersede
>
On 2019-02-05, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> The main problem I have with this PR is that it seems to introduce
> 8 brand new APIs, but since there is no doc, docstrings or tests
> it's unclear which ones are supposed to be used, how or whether
> they are supposed to supersede or deprecate older (slow
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:21 AM Davin Potts <
python+python_...@discontinuity.net> wrote:
> I am attempting to do the right thing and am following the advice of other
> core devs in what I have done thus far.
>
> Borrowing heavily from what I've added to issue35813 just now:
>
> This work is the re
> On Feb 4, 2019, at 2:36 AM, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
> @Raymond, would you be willing to work with Davin on finishing this work in
> time for alpha2?
I would be happy to help, but this is beyond my technical ability. The people
who are qualified to work on this have already chimed in on the d
The main problem here seems to be a shortage of communication. :/
Also, I agree on the exceptional nature of merging incomplete PRs.
-eric
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:37 AM Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
>
> > On 4 Feb 2019, at 01:49, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > I think this is now up to the 3.8 releas
> On 4 Feb 2019, at 01:49, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> I think this is now up to the 3.8 release manager.
I responded on the tracker: https://bugs.python.org/issue35813#msg334817
I wrote:
> @Davin, in what time can you fill in the missing tests and documentation? If
> this is something you
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 21:12:38 -0600
Davin Potts wrote:
>
> I was encouraged by Lukasz, Yury, and others to check in this code early,
> not waiting for tests and docs, in order to both solicit more feedback and
> provide for broader testing.
For the record: submitting a PR without tests or docs is
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 18:10:43 -0800
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >
> > On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
> >
> > Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert revi
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 17:52:55 -0800
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
>
> Please work *with* Davin on this one.
You know, Raymond, I'm
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 21:25:27 -0600
Davin Potts wrote:
> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>
> Simply put: no. There have been a number of reactionary comments in the
> last 16 hours but no attempt to reach out to me directly d
> On 4 Feb 2019, at 04:25, Davin Potts
> wrote:
>
> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>
> Simply put: no. There have been a number of reactionary comments in the
> last 16 hours but no attempt to reach out to me directly
> On 4 Feb 2019, at 03:10, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>>
>> Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed an
On Feb 3, 2019, at 18:10, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> FWIW, with dataclasses we decided to get the PR committed early, long before
> most of the tests and all of the docs. The principle was that bigger changes
> needed to go in as early as possible in the release cycle so that we could
> thor
On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
Simply put: no. There have been a number of reactionary comments in the
last 16 hours but no attempt to reach out to me directly during that time.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:12 PM Raymond Hettinge
I am attempting to do the right thing and am following the advice of other
core devs in what I have done thus far.
Borrowing heavily from what I've added to issue35813 just now:
This work is the result of ~1.5 years of development effort, much of it
accomplished at the last two core dev sprints.
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
>
> Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed and make
> several suggestions.
I think the PR sat in a stable stat
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
Please work *with* Davin on this one.
It was only recently that you edited his name out of the list of maintainers
for multiprocess
On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed and
make several suggestions.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Pytho
Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back?
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:49 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think this is now up to the 3.8 release manager.
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:34 PM Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2019 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'd l
I think this is now up to the 3.8 release manager.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 4:34 PM Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 2/3/2019 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
> >
> > The reason is
On 2/3/2019 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
The reason is simple: [over 1000 lines not reviewed, no tests, no docs]
Aside from the technical reasons Antoine gave, which I agree with, I
On Feb 3, 2019, at 13:03, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask for the reversion of the changes done in
> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11664
>
> The reason is simple: the PR isn't complete, it lacks docs and tests.
> It also didn't pass any review (this was pointed by Ronald), eve
30 matches
Mail list logo
