On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:03, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> What do you mean by moved? I don't it has ever moved around in the sandbox.
IIRC it was moved into the sandbox from some other location at some point?
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
Python-Dev mailing lis
On 10/02/2010 01:07, Ben Finney wrote:
Michael Foord writes:
On 09/02/2010 21:50, Ben Finney wrote:
I understood the point of ‘TestCase.shortDescription’, and indeed
the point of that particular name, was to be clear that some *other*
text could be the short description for the test
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Besides, as Barry said, classifying a bug as blocker is also a good way
> to attract some attention on it. Other classifications, even "critical",
> don't have the same effect.
Unfortunately, not many people have privilege to change bug p
anatoly techtonik gmail.com> writes:
>
> Unfortunately, not many people have privilege to change bug properties
> to attract attention to the issues. For example, this patch -
> http://bugs.python.org/issue7582 is ready to be committed, it is
> trivial, not a release blocker, but would be nice be
2010/2/10 Dirkjan Ochtman :
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:03, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> What do you mean by moved? I don't it has ever moved around in the sandbox.
>
> IIRC it was moved into the sandbox from some other location at some point?
r52858 | guido.van.rossum | 2006-11-29 11:38:40 -0600
Antoine Pitrou writes:
> Besides, as Barry said, classifying a bug as blocker is also a good way
> to attract some attention on it. Other classifications, even "critical",
> don't have the same effect.
If done for the sole purpose of attracting attention, it's no
different from spam. Opinions
anatoly techtonik writes:
> Is it possible to make exploits out of crashers?
Depends on how you define "exploit". If your definition includes
denial of service, yes, crashing a server application would count.
Privilege escalation is harder to achieve. The general answer is
"yes", but each cas
On Feb 10, 2010, at 01:57 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>Unfortunately, not many people have privilege to change bug properties
>to attract attention to the issues. For example, this patch -
>http://bugs.python.org/issue7582 is ready to be committed, it is
>trivial, not a release blocker, but would
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Holger Krekel wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
>> Michael Foord writes:
>>
>>> The next 'big' change to unittest will (may?) be the introduction of
>>> class and module level setUp and tearDown. This was discussed on
>>> Python-ideas
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:15 PM, wrote:
> On 10:42 pm, fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
>>
>> On 09/02/2010 21:57, Ben Finney wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael Foord writes:
The next 'big' change to unittest will (may?) be the introduction of
class and module level setUp and tearDown. This wa
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Michael Foord writes:
>
>> I've used unittest for long running functional and integration tests
>> (in both desktop and web applications). The infrastructure it provides
>> is great for this. Don't get hung up on the fact that it is called
>> un
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> On 10/02/2010 01:07, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Michael Foord writes:
>>> On 09/02/2010 21:50, Ben Finney wrote:
I understood the point of ‘TestCase.shortDescription’, and indeed
the point of that particular name, was to be clear th
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 13:59, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> The only moving was moving a lot of the files into a lib2to3
> directory. It would be nice if the hg history could be preserved for
> those files.
Please see if hg.python.org/2to3 would satisfy your needs.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 14:47, Collin Winter wrote:
> To follow up on some of the open issues:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Collin Winter
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Open Issues
>> ===
>>
>> - *Code review policy for the ``py3k-jit`` branch.* How does the CPython
>> community want us to
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 21:24, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>>> Le Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:16:15 +0200, anatoly techtonik a écrit :
I've noticed a couple of issues that 100% crash Python 2.6.4 like this
one - http://bugs.python.org/issue6608 Is i
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:45:41 -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Holger Krekel wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ben Finney
> > wrote:
> >> Michael Foord writes:
> >>
> >>> The next 'big' change to unittest will (may?) be the introduction of
> >>> class and mo
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:56 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:45:41 -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Holger Krekel
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ben Finney
>> > wrote:
>> >> Michael Foord writes:
>> >>
>> >>> The next 'big' cha
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:57:31 +0200, anatoly techtonik
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > Besides, as Barry said, classifying a bug as blocker is also a good way
> > to attract some attention on it. Other classifications, even "critical",
> > don't have the sa
> If a committer or triage
> person sets an issue to release blocker it should mean that they think
> the release manager should make a decision about that issue before the
> next release. That decision may well be that it shouldn't be a blocker.
I think it's (slightly) worse. For the release man
19 matches
Mail list logo
