| msg212443 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) *  |
Date: 2014-02-28 15:12 |
| This commit fixes the traceback we're seeing on Ubuntu with Python 3.4, in Popen.__del__ on interpreter shutdown. |
|
|
| msg212444 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2014-02-28 15:12 |
| http://bugs.python.org/issue19021 |
|
|
| msg212702 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2014-03-04 10:25 |
| Link to the changeset: 6a1711c96fa6 |
|
|
| msg212716 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2014-03-04 11:16 |
| This issue is a regression of Python 3.4 compared to Python 3.3. subprocess is major module and so 6a1711c96fa6 must be into Python 3.4.0. |
|
|
| msg212823 - (view) |
Author: Larry Hastings (larry) * |
Date: 2014-03-06 17:31 |
| According to #19021, this actually requires six revisions: 6a1711c96fa6 fa160c8145e5 efaf12106d68 7ecee9e0dc58 10ea3125d7b8 488ccbee6ee6 Is that correct? |
|
|
| msg212826 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2014-03-06 17:35 |
| On Mar 06, 2014, at 05:31 PM, Larry Hastings wrote: >Larry Hastings added the comment: > >According to #19021, this actually requires six revisions: > >6a1711c96fa6 >fa160c8145e5 >efaf12106d68 >7ecee9e0dc58 >10ea3125d7b8 >488ccbee6ee6 > >Is that correct? Yes, at least. I got sidetracked by Work but am now trying to get back to this. I think there maybe other changes needed to get the test suite to fully pass, but OTOH, the failures I've seen may be due to my poor cherry picking skills or other changes introduced in Debian/Ubuntu. |
|
|
| msg212831 - (view) |
Author: Larry Hastings (larry) * |
Date: 2014-03-06 17:43 |
| What do you want me to do? Hold off while you determine the correct set of changes, or proceed with these six? (p.s. rebasing = headache, so having the right set of changes up front would be super-swell.) |
|
|
| msg212834 - (view) |
Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * |
Date: 2014-03-06 18:41 |
| Yes, that is correct. I thought that 6a1711c96fa6 is already in RC1, that is why I hadn't opened cherrypick issue for this. 6a1711c96fa6 is critical change because it not only fixes one annoying warning, but it also fixes wrong order of finalization of modules and other bugs. |
|
|
| msg212837 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2014-03-06 19:07 |
| On Mar 06, 2014, at 06:41 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > >I thought that 6a1711c96fa6 is already in RC1, that is why I hadn't opened >cherrypick issue for this. 6a1711c96fa6 is critical change because it not >only fixes one annoying warning, but it also fixes wrong order of >finalization of modules and other bugs. I don't think it is, since it applied cleanly to the rc2 tarball. |
|
|
| msg212839 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2014-03-06 19:44 |
| On Mar 06, 2014, at 05:43 PM, Larry Hastings wrote: >What do you want me to do? Hold off while you determine the correct set of >changes, or proceed with these six? I have just verified that if you take the rc2 tarball and apply these six changesets, it 1) applies cleanly; 2) completes a "make test" with no errors. |
|
|
| msg212874 - (view) |
Author: Larry Hastings (larry) * |
Date: 2014-03-07 11:03 |
| ok. |
|
|