Team,
amazing job on getting us back on track over the weekend.
Thank you
All release blockers and deferred release blockers solved. And there was
relatively little additional activity on the branch -- as expected at this
point! Thank you for this, it will help get the release candidate out on t
On 2019-09-30 00:33, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
We'll never change the size of the config structs (or any other public
struct) in a maintenance branch
But we *will* change it in alphas/betas, and then we will ask people to
try their software out with these.
Of course, there are no actual API/AB
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 09:37, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Le lun. 30 sept. 2019 à 00:33, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> > As noted above, despite what I wrote on BPO, you no longer need to persuade
> > me that the version check is desirable, only that a narrow check on
> > specific struct sizes is pref
Le lun. 30 sept. 2019 à 13:45, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> > I understand that your main motivation to use the Python version
> > number rather than sizeof(PyConfig) is the error message.
>
> No, my main motivation is to create an API that can emit a useful
> error message on *ALL* version conflicts
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 17:48, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
> Team,
> amazing job on getting us back on track over the weekend.
>
> Thank you
> All release blockers and deferred release blockers solved. And there was
> relatively little additional activity on the branch -- as expected at this
> point! T
> On 30 Sep 2019, at 16:09, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> I've filed https://bugs.python.org/issue38326 as a release blocker, as
> I don't think we should be cutting RCs when changes have been made to
> a PEP-approved API without any pre-merge design discussion.
Nick, Victor, as co-authors of said PE
I agree that passing a struct size as struct member values sounds a bit
unidiomatic.
Also, it doesn't achieve ABI stability, just allows erroring out in
case the user links with the wrong Python version.
Regards
Antoine.
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:47:41 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Se
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 23:50, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> Le lun. 30 sept. 2019 à 13:45, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> > > I understand that your main motivation to use the Python version
> > > number rather than sizeof(PyConfig) is the error message.
> >
> > No, my main motivation is to create an API t
On Tue., 1 Oct. 2019, 3:05 am Nick Coghlan, wrote:
>
> The only outcome I'd consider undesirable is shipping a public API
> that's more awkward to use than it needs to be, doesn't conform to the
> accepted version of the PEP, and doesn't protect against most of the
> potential sources of segfault
On Mon., 30 Sep. 2019, 7:43 pm Petr Viktorin, wrote:
> On 2019-09-30 00:33, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> [...]
> > We'll never change the size of the config structs (or any other public
> > struct) in a maintenance branch
>
> But we *will* change it in alphas/betas, and then we will ask people to
> try
Hi back,
It seems like "config.struct_size = sizeof(PyConfig);" syntax is "not
really liked".
I don't see any traction to provide a stable ABI for embedded Python.
The consensus is more towards: "it doesn't work and we don't want to
bother with false promises" (nor add code for that).
Since Luka
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> Le dim. 29 sept. 2019 à 08:47, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com a écrit :
> > I don't quite understand the purpose of this change,
> > as there's no
> > stable ABI for applications embedding CPython.
> > Well, I would like to prepare Python to provide a stable ABI
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 22:43:40 +0200
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi back,
>
> It seems like "config.struct_size = sizeof(PyConfig);" syntax is "not
> really liked".
>
> I don't see any traction to provide a stable ABI for embedded Python.
Not at the last minute in a rc1, I'd say :-)
I think if you w
Le lun. 30 sept. 2019 à 23:26, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> I think if you wanted to make the PyConfig apt at providing
> ABI-stability, you should have designed it differently.
> `PyType_FromSpec` provides a useful model (pass an arbitrary-sized
> static array of field initializers).
PyConfig is e
On Tue., 1 Oct. 2019, 6:47 am Victor Stinner, wrote:
> Hi back,
>
> It seems like "config.struct_size = sizeof(PyConfig);" syntax is "not
> really liked".
>
> I don't see any traction to provide a stable ABI for embedded Python.
> The consensus is more towards: "it doesn't work and we don't want
On Tue., 1 Oct. 2019, 8:38 am Nick Coghlan, wrote:
> Later, if we decide to start proving a stable ABI for embedded Python,
>> we can still add a "version" or "struct_size" field to PyConfig later
>> (for example in Python 3.9).
>>
>
> Thanks Victor, I think this is the right way for us to go, gi
On 30Sep2019 1625, Nick Coghlan wrote:
After merging your PR and closing mine, I had an idea for Python 3.9:
what if we offered a separate public "int
Py_CheckVersionCompatibility(uint64_t header_version)" call? (64 bit
input rather than 32 to allow for possible future changes to the version
n
Hello Łukasz,
I consider this one critical enough to get into 3.8:
https://bugs.python.org/issue38319
Long story short: shutil.copyfile() and socket.sendfile() are broken on
32-bit platforms for files >= 2GiB.
shutil.copyfile() was modified by me in the 3.8 cycle so the bug only
affects 3.8 and 3.9
18 matches
Mail list logo
