From: Frank W. <fwi...@gm...> - 2008-07-21 00:51:54
|
So it looks like most development has moved to the asm branch, and that the asm branch has probably reached "good enough" to become trunk. Still, I want to check and make sure that this is the right thing to do. My plan for this move would look something like this: 1) Announce a freeze of trunk 2) make a Release_2_3maint branch against the current trunk, and a Release_2_3a0 tag to mark the last of the javacc based Jythons -- just in case someone needs to continue with that (say a GSOC student that still needs this version, or someone in the future that cannot use ANTLR for some reason...) 3) merge asm into trunk using svnmerge.py 4) soon after release a proper alpha2 with a proper Release_2_5maint branch, a proper tag, etc -- which would have been difficult for alpha1 because I made it from a branch and not trunk. I think that's it... Thoughts? -Frank |
From: Philip J. <pj...@un...> - 2008-07-21 04:31:23
|
On Jul 20, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Frank Wierzbicki wrote: > So it looks like most development has moved to the asm branch, and > that the asm branch has probably reached "good enough" to become > trunk. Still, I want to check and make sure that this is the right > thing to do. I think it's pretty much ready to be merged, though there's a few critical things that should be fixed beforehand or at least very soon afterwards: o no line numbers in tracebacks o execfile issues. are they related to the parser newline issues? (see test_univnewlines.py for an example) o the lack of a bytecode magic number has to be resolved before any new compiler changes are made -- Philip Jenvey |
From: Frank W. <fwi...@gm...> - 2008-07-21 12:28:59
|
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Philip Jenvey <pj...@un...> wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Frank Wierzbicki wrote: > >> So it looks like most development has moved to the asm branch, and >> that the asm branch has probably reached "good enough" to become >> trunk. Still, I want to check and make sure that this is the right >> thing to do. > > I think it's pretty much ready to be merged, though there's a few critical > things that should be fixed beforehand or at least very soon afterwards: > > o no line numbers in tracebacks > o execfile issues. are they related to the parser newline issues? (see > test_univnewlines.py for an example) > o the lack of a bytecode magic number has to be resolved before any new > compiler changes are made Those are pretty nasty -- the first two are on my immediate list, so I'll see about getting those figured out. The last is probably pretty easy, so I think I will try to get that one done as well. I'll hold the merge since I bet I could have these resolved or mostly resolved this week. -Frank |