Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r66863 - python/trunk/Modules/posixmodule.c

2008-10-10 Thread Martin v. Löwis
> > Correct. But they might well be broken, no? > > I would hope some effort is made that they not be. If they generate a > positive, I would expect that the contributor would try to fix that > before committing, no? If they discover that it's "false", they fix > or remove the test; otherwise t

[Python-Dev] www.python.org/doc and docs.python.org hotfixed

2008-10-10 Thread Jim Jewett
> For the search engine issue, is there any way we can tell robots to > ignore the rewrite rules so they see the broken links? (although even > that may not be ideal, since what we really want is to tell the robot > the link is broken, and provide the new alternative) I may be missing something ob

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r66863 - python/trunk/Modules/posixmodule.c

2008-10-10 Thread A.M. Kuchling
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 08:44:38AM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > So 2.6.0 will contain a lot of tests that have never been tested in > a wide variety of systems. Some are incorrect, and get fixed in 2.6.1, > and stay fixed afterwards. This is completely different from somebody > introducing a n

[Python-Dev] syntax change justification

2008-10-10 Thread Jim Jewett
Nick Coghlan's explanation of what justifies a syntax change (most of message http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-October/082831.html ) should probably be added to the standard docs/FAQs somewhere. At the moment, I'm not sure exactly where, though. At the moment, the Developer FAQ (h

[Python-Dev] Summary of Python tracker Issues

2008-10-10 Thread Python tracker
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (10/03/08 - 10/10/08) Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/ To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue number. Do NOT respond to this message. 2105 open (+49) / 13818 closed (+21) / 15923 total (+70) Open issues with patches: 690 Average

[Python-Dev] backporting tests [was: [Python-checkins] r66863 - python/trunk/Modules/posixmodule.c]

2008-10-10 Thread Jim Jewett
In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-October/082994.html Martin v. Löwis wrote: > So 2.6.0 will contain a lot of tests that have never been tested in > a wide variety of systems. Some are incorrect, and get fixed in 2.6.1, > and stay fixed afterwards. This is completely different fr

Re: [Python-Dev] Documentation idea

2008-10-10 Thread Brett Cannon
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:37 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9 Oct, 11:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Background >> -- >> In the itertools module docs, I included pure python equivalents for each >> of the C functions. Necessarily, some of those equivalents are only >> approxi

Re: [Python-Dev] syntax change justification

2008-10-10 Thread Brett Cannon
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick Coghlan's explanation of what justifies a syntax change (most of message > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-October/082831.html ) > should probably be added to the standard docs/FAQs somewhere. > > At the

Re: [Python-Dev] Documentation idea

2008-10-10 Thread Terry Reedy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 Oct, 11:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Background -- In the itertools module docs, I included pure python equivalents for each of the C functions. Necessarily, some of those equivalents are only approximate but they seem to have greatly enhanced the doc

Re: [Python-Dev] syntax change justification

2008-10-10 Thread Terry Reedy
Jim Jewett wrote: Nick Coghlan's explanation of what justifies a syntax change (most of message http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-October/082831.html ) should probably be added to the standard docs/FAQs somewhere. I agree that this was a helpful explanation. A link to the origin

Re: [Python-Dev] Documentation idea

2008-10-10 Thread Brett Cannon
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> On 9 Oct, 11:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> Background >>> -- >>> In the itertools module docs, I included pure python equivalents for each >>> of the C functions. Necessarily,

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r66863 - python/trunk/Modules/posixmodule.c

2008-10-10 Thread Hirokazu Yamamoto
It seems to me that Skip was asking whether the "memory leak" impacted the 2.6 branch, and the answer should have been "No": the change that introduced the memory leak had just been committed 10 minutes before. You are probably right (although it's not quite clear from Skip's question).

Re: [Python-Dev] syntax change justification

2008-10-10 Thread Nick Coghlan
Terry Reedy wrote: > Jim Jewett wrote: >> Nick Coghlan's explanation of what justifies a syntax change (most of >> message >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-October/082831.html ) >> should probably be added to the standard docs/FAQs somewhere. > > I agree that this was a helpful

Re: [Python-Dev] Documentation idea

2008-10-10 Thread Terry Reedy
Brett Cannon wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The advantage of the decorator version is that the compiler or module loader could be special cased to recognize the 'C' decorator and try it first *before* using the Python version, which would serve a

Re: [Python-Dev] Documentation idea

2008-10-10 Thread Brett Cannon
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> The advantage of the decorator version is that the compiler or module >>> loader >>> could be special cased to recognize