Patches item #1634405, was opened at 2007-01-12 17:17
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by cgroves
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312867&aid=1634405&group_id=12867
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: None
Group: targeted for 2.2beta2
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: leouser (leouserz)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Patches for BUG: 1605847
Initial Comment:
See:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1605847&group_id=12867&atid=112867
Ok here comes some patches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Charles Groves (cgroves)
Date: 2007-03-09 12:26
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1174327
Originator: NO
Committed in r3138.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Charles Groves (cgroves)
Date: 2007-01-20 12:23
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1174327
Originator: NO
It doesn't veto it, it just means that it's much less likely that I'll
look at it. The more you do to make your changes easily comprehensible and
evaluated the better. A single patch file instead of 7 is in that
direction. A single, concise message describing what you've done instead
of a stream of consciousness narrative as you're working on something is in
that direction.
Shrink this down to one patch and I'll happily evaluate it. If not, maybe
someone else will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-15 19:15
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
I believe the PyFunctionTable patch is not needed if the constructor
version is used.
Charles,
Ill look into it. I hope this doesn't veto the patches for a possible
evaluation. They really aren't that involved...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Charles Groves (cgroves)
Date: 2007-01-15 13:40
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1174327
Originator: NO
If you do a 'svn diff . > co_filename.patch' in the root of your jython
checkout, you can get all of this in a single patch file instead of
several. If you have changes in your checkout you don't want in the patch,
just list the files you do want in the patch rather in place of the '.' in
the command. It'll make this much more likely to be evaluated and applied
if it's in a single patch file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-15 13:40
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
hmm, maybe that is the best home for it...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-15 13:37
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
well, I asked the best way to submit it and they told me to do it this
way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Date: 2007-01-15 13:31
Message:
Logged In: NO
I assume this should have been submitted into http://jython.org/patches/.
Same is true also for http://jython.org/bugs/1636030. But obviously a patch
in a bit wrong place is much better than no patch. =)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-12 17:50
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
File Added: BytecodeLoaderDiff2.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-12 17:49
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
yes, moving the code into the constructor works. Attached is the Module
diff and following will be the ByteCodeloader diff 2.
File Added: ModuleDiff2.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-12 17:29
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
another possibility is to move all the initialise code into the
constructor for the module. It would reduce the code down to one method
and make the BytecodeLoader patch simpler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-12 17:21
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
org.python.compiler.PyFunctionTable patch
should be
org.python.code.PyFunctionTable patch
ok the patch changes the static initialiser to a instance method. This
allows the system to provide a String file name to the module.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-12 17:20
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
File Added: impDiff.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-12 17:19
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
File Added: PyFunctionTableDiff.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-12 17:19
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
File Added: PyDiff.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-12 17:18
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
File Added: BytecodeLoaderDiff.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: leouser (leouserz)
Date: 2007-01-12 17:17
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1277399
Originator: YES
File Added: jythonDiff.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312867&aid=1634405&group_id=12867
|