On 10 Sep, 2009, at 18:23, Ned Deily wrote: > In article <9D506035-7C2D-4929-A134-E88EEB7B7D9E at python.org>, > Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: > >> On Sep 9, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Ned Deily wrote: >> >>> In article <11A6545D-7204-4F61-B55B-1CC77CB5645E at python.org>, >>> Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: >>>> I still want to release by the 25th, but I'd be willing to move the >>>> rc >>>> to Monday the 21st. We're really just trying to avoid a brown bag >>>> moment, so that should give us enough time to double check the >>>> releases. >>> >>> The recent release of OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) has triggered a fair >>> amount of 2.6 bug tracker activity, since 10.6 now includes 2.6 >>> (2.6.1) >>> and a 64-bit version at that. A number of patches have either just >>> been checked-in over the past couple of weeks or are getting some >>> exposure before check-in. Given the timing and the (appropriate) >>> infrequency of 2.6.x releases, I think it would be unfortunate to >>> push >>> 2.6.3 out the door without ensuring that it works well on 10.6. >>> Therefore, I propose that 2.6.3 should have 10.6 compatibility as a >>> "release goal". >>> >>> Without trying to put Ronald on the spot (too much!), it would be a >>> good >>> idea to get his assessment where things stand wrt 2.6 on 10.6 before >>> setting a final release date. >> >> I'm hoping that Python won't have any issues building and running on >> 10.6, but I don't have it yet so I can't personally test it out. >> >> How would you quantify "works well"? Do you have any thoughts on >> tests you'd run other than the standard test suite? If 2.6.3 is >> shown >> to pass its test suite on 10.5.x, is that good enough? Are the >> specific bug fixes necessary for 10.6? > > Running the standard test suite on 10.6 and seeing no regressions > compared to the same suite on 10.5.x seems a reasonable necessary > requirement. We have the resources to do that. Beyond that, as > Ronald > suggests, I think it important to go through the open issues in the > next > couple of days and identify and flag any potential release-blockers > (besides the IDLE problem already mentioned). The IDLE issue is IMHO a release blocker, as is issue 6851. > > One other open issue is 64-bit support in the python.org OS X > installer. > There have been discussions and requests in the past and, with Apple > providing 64-bit out of the box in 10.6, it seems like it's time to > provide something on python.org as well. One option: continue to > provide a 32-bit only installer for ppc and i386 for 10.3.9 and beyond > and add a second installer image with 3-way (ppc, i386, x86_64 but no > ppc64) 32/64 for 10.5 and beyond. Ronald, is that your current > thinking? 64-bit support can wait until after 2.6.3 is released. I need time to work out what's needed go create a good installer (and not just running the current build-installer.py script because that includes to much for a binary that doesn't run on 10.3.9). That won't happen before 2.6.3 is released because I'm too thinly stretched even without working on that. Ronald -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2224 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20090915/47226121/attachment.bin>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4