[Python-Dev] Asking for reversion
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 Hettinger <
raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote:
> It was only recently that you edited his name out of the list of
maintainers for multiprocessing
> even though that is what he's been working on for the last two years and
at the last two sprints.
I think it would be best to discuss Antoine's decision to take this
particular action without first consulting me, elsewhere and not part of
As I said, I am happy to do the most constructive thing possible and I
sought the advice of those I highly respect first before doing as I have.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:12 PM Davin Potts <
python+python_dev at 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 result of ~1.5 years of development effort, much of it
> accomplished at the last two core dev sprints. The code behind it has been
> stable since September 2018 and tested as an independently installable
> package by multiple people.
> 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. I understand that doing such a thing is not
> at all a novelty. Thankfully it is doing that -- I hope that feedback
> remains constructive and supportive.
> There are some tests to be found in a branch (enh-tests-shmem) of
> github.com/applio/cpython which I think should become more comprehensive
> before inclusion. Temporarily deferring and not including them as part of
> the first alpha should reduce the complexity of that release.
> Regarding the BSD license on the C code being adopted, my conversations
> with Brett and subsequently Van have not raised concerns, far from it --
> there is a process which is being followed to the letter. If there are
> other reasons to object to the thoughtful adoption of code licensed like
> this one, that deserves a decoupled and larger discussion first.
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:12 PM Raymond Hettinger <
> raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> 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 state for many months, and it looks like
>> RO's review comments came *after* the commit.
>> 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 thoroughly exercise it (something that almost never happens while
>> something is in the PR stage). It would be great if the same came happen
>> here. IIRC, shared memory has long been the holy grail for
>> multiprocessing, helping to mitigate its principle disadvantage (the cost
>> of moving data between processes). It's something we really want.
>> But let's see what the 3.8 release manager has to say.
>> Python-Dev mailing list
>> Python-Dev at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...