RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jan 7 14:16:59 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-January/096700.html

On 01/07/2010 01:23 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> As Simon pointed out, while some organisations do work that way, the PSF
> isn't one of them.
>
> The PSF only requires that the code be contributed under a license that
> then allows us to turn around and redistribute it under a different open
> source license without requesting additional permission from the
> copyright holder. For corporate contributions, I believe the contributor
> agreement needs to be signed by an authorised agent of the company - the
> place to check that would probably be psf at python.org (that's the email
> address for the PSF board).
>
> Assuming the subject line relates to the code that you would like to
> contribute though, that particular change is unlikely to happen - 2.6 is
> in maintenance mode and changing RLock from a Python implementation to
> the faster C one is solidly in new feature territory. Although a
> backport of the 3.2 C RLock implementation to 2.7 could be useful, I
> doubt that backporting code provided by an existing committer would be
> the subject of this query :)
>
> Regards,
> Nick.
>
>    
Yes, it is the new RLock implementation.
If I understood this correctly, we should make a patch against trunk if 
anything should be contributed.
Do you mean that we wouldn't need the paperwork for backporting the 
original patch committed to py3k?

Regards
Johan Gill
Agama Technologies

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-January/096700.html below:

[Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.