From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2013-02-13 20:40:47
|
A little while ago our Jython tracker maintainer Raghuram Devarakonda retired (If you are listening, thanks for doing it for so long Raghuram!) and I theoretically took over. I haven't done a great job and I'm currently having trouble getting the versions updated. I'm considering asking if the CPython folks would be OK with us using their tracker, by just adding a "Jython 2.5" and "Jython 2.7" label in their version area. The other option is if someone here wants to take over maintaining our tracker if there are any takers.... I'm actually sort of fond of the idea of sharing the tracker as I plan to merge our our entire Lib/ area into CPython's LIb as part of 3.x. Here is the list of justifications I plan to send: * In the 3.x timeframe, we plan to push all of our *.py code into the CPython standard library. I have the support of many core devs on this, it just hasn't been done in a systematic way yet. I've already done this for a couple of files (for example see http://bugs.python.org/issue16886) but I plan to see that all of our .py files get pushed as Jython moves to 3.x. Since half of Jython's code will live in the CPython repo anyway, why not use the same tracker? * It would be better for Jython in general if we followed CPython's development style more closely, with code reviews etc. It would be essential for us to do this with code that actually lives in CPython's standard library anyway. * The database of who has signed a contributor agreement is clear in bugs.python.org, but is not in bugs.jython.org, and it would probably be too much work to sync them. * The implementation effort would be small (really just add "Jython 2.5" and "Jython 2.7" to the Versions field and later "Jython 3.4" or whatever version we end up targeting). I also don't see a need to migrate the data from bugs.jython.org - we could just slowly re-direct people to http:/bugs.python.org on a bug-by-bug basis until traffic to htttp://bugs.jython.org gets slow enough, then we could either shut it down or leave it up read-only. What do you folks think? I have not discussed this with current Jython devs yet, as I'd prefer to be sure that it would be acceptable here first. -Frank |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2013-02-13 20:44:40
|
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:40 PM, fwi...@gm... <fwi...@gm...> wrote: > What do you folks think? I have not discussed this with current Jython > devs yet, as I'd prefer to be sure that it would be acceptable here first. Obviously this is a cut and paste error from running it by the tracker folks first. If we do want to go this way I will discuss it on the python committers list next, since they will be the ones who will see an increase (though small) in bug submissions. -Frank |
From: Darjus L. <da...@gm...> - 2013-02-13 22:06:30
|
I don't mind that, though i think there will be some confusion for a while on what bugs live where. So that needs to be covered in some way? On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM, fwi...@gm... <fwi...@gm...> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:40 PM, fwi...@gm... > <fwi...@gm...> wrote: >> What do you folks think? I have not discussed this with current Jython >> devs yet, as I'd prefer to be sure that it would be acceptable here first. > Obviously this is a cut and paste error from running it by the tracker > folks first. If we do want to go this way I will discuss it on the > python committers list next, since they will be the ones who will see > an increase (though small) in bug submissions. > > -Frank > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer > Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 > and get the hardware for free! Learn more. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb > _______________________________________________ > Jython-dev mailing list > Jyt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-dev |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2013-02-13 22:53:11
|
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Darjus Loktevic <da...@gm...> wrote: > I don't mind that, though i think there will be some confusion for a > while on what bugs live where. So that needs to be covered in some > way? Assuming the CPython folks are OK with this, my current plan is to change all of our docs and then deal with new bugs on bugs.jython case by case (add a note asking the poster to re-post the bug at bugs.python.org) for a while. I'd probably leave the current bugs where they are and make a concerted effort to fix or close them and get it down to a small enough number that I could just hand port whatever is left. -Frank |
From: Alan K. <jyt...@xh...> - 2013-02-14 07:18:06
|
Hi all, Many thanks to Raghu for maintaining the tracker. My thoughts on moving over to the cpython tracker are 1. Yes, this is a *great* idea. I look at the fantastic integration that the cpython folks have with mercurial and rietveld, and think that our development process would massively improve if we had the same tools. There are great benefits to be had from a an integrated development process, and it is obvious that cpython is already experiencing those benefits: it would be fantastic if we could "inherit" that by moving to the same infrastructure. Moreover, we'd be more likely to have jython/java considerations included into the core versions of libraries if we followed an identical process, that was familiar to cpython core devs and library maintainers. 2. However, I would *not* like to see us run a split tracker. That's just a recipe for confusion and frustration. There should be only a single tracker, IMHO, for all jython issues, inclusing history: I'd hate to see us lose all of our history, there's a lot of useful information in there. Would it really be that difficult to migrate the contents of our roundup database to theirs? Alan. On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:40 PM, fwi...@gm... < fwi...@gm...> wrote: > A little while ago our Jython tracker maintainer Raghuram Devarakonda > retired (If you are listening, thanks for doing it for so long > Raghuram!) and I theoretically took over. I haven't done a great job > and I'm currently having trouble getting the versions updated. I'm > considering asking if the CPython folks would be OK with us using > their tracker, by just adding a "Jython 2.5" and "Jython 2.7" label in > their version area. The other option is if someone here wants to take > over maintaining our tracker if there are any takers.... I'm actually > sort of fond of the idea of sharing the tracker as I plan to merge our > our entire Lib/ area into CPython's LIb as part of 3.x. > > Here is the list of justifications I plan to send: > > * In the 3.x timeframe, we plan to push all of our *.py code into the > CPython standard library. I have the support of many core devs on > this, it just hasn't been done in a systematic way yet. I've already > done this for a couple of files (for example see > http://bugs.python.org/issue16886) but I plan to see that all of our > .py files get pushed as Jython moves to 3.x. Since half of Jython's > code will live in the CPython repo anyway, why not use the same > tracker? > > * It would be better for Jython in general if we followed CPython's > development style more closely, with code reviews etc. It would be > essential for us to do this with code that actually lives in CPython's > standard library anyway. > > * The database of who has signed a contributor agreement is clear in > bugs.python.org, but is not in bugs.jython.org, and it would probably > be too much work to sync them. > > * The implementation effort would be small (really just add "Jython > 2.5" and "Jython 2.7" to the Versions field and later "Jython 3.4" or > whatever version we end up targeting). I also don't see a need to > migrate the data from bugs.jython.org - we could just slowly re-direct > people to http:/bugs.python.org on a bug-by-bug basis until traffic to > htttp://bugs.jython.org gets slow enough, then we could either shut it > down or leave it up read-only. > > What do you folks think? I have not discussed this with current Jython > devs yet, as I'd prefer to be sure that it would be acceptable here first. > > -Frank > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer > Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 > and get the hardware for free! Learn more. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb > _______________________________________________ > Jython-dev mailing list > Jyt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-dev > |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2013-02-14 16:59:53
|
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Alan Kennedy <jyt...@xh...> wrote: > Would it really be that difficult to migrate the contents of our roundup > database to theirs? Well, what I don't want to do is drop 300+ inconsistently addressed/maintained bugs on the CPython community.... but I see your point about the undesirability of a split tracker and the value of our history. So regardless of whether we migrate or not, the first order of business is to get our tracker straightened out. I think I'll give upgrading our current tracker a harder look. Maybe we can get our own tracker to look as nice as CPython's.... So I'm going to switch gears and look at what it takes to upgrade us. If anyone has time to look into this instead of me, let me know - I'd prefer to do other stuff, but I think this is too important to let rot anymore. To get an idea of what it would take see this doc: http://wiki.python.org/moin/TrackerDevelopment The Jython tracker is mentioned at the bottom of the doc - mainly you do hg clone http://hg.python.org/tracker/jython/ Instead of hg clone http://hg.python.org/tracker/roundup for one of the steps. -Frank |
From: Jeff A. <ja...@fa...> - 2013-02-16 18:40:06
|
I kept quiet for a while as I have little understanding of what is under the covers of the trackers. I had assumed the Jython tracker was just the same software as the Python one, with obvious configuration differences, and had simply not kept up. The two repo histories seem to confirm this. With my limited understanding, I'd have gone for the route you're taking for now. My first thought was that it would be needlessly confusing and probably a bit unwelcome to the CPython team. People would want filtered views, and those who study bug fix rates and backlogs would surely want separate scores and summaries. Apart from the fact that the issue numbers form a single sequence (which would help in certain contexts), that almost sounds like two interfaces, albeit off a single infrastructure back stage. It sounds like it would work technically. I think the business case would be that the work involved in the interface development and renumbering everything exceeded the maintenance of keeping the two in sync ( ... hinges on whether it does, I mean). And the "human case" is more to do with comfort amongst, and togetherness with, the CPython community. Support for Rietveld, as identified by Alan, looks like it would be useful if we took a more sophisticated approach to review. I don't see why that requires a single tracker as opposed to reproducing what CPython have done. Jeff Allen On 14/02/2013 16:59, fwi...@gm... wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Alan Kennedy<jyt...@xh...> wrote: >> Would it really be that difficult to migrate the contents of our roundup >> database to theirs? > Well, what I don't want to do is drop 300+ inconsistently > addressed/maintained bugs on the CPython community.... but I see your > point about the undesirability of a split tracker and the value of our > history. > > So regardless of whether we migrate or not, the first order of > business is to get our tracker straightened out. I think I'll give > upgrading our current tracker a harder look. Maybe we can get our own > tracker to look as nice as CPython's.... > > So I'm going to switch gears and look at what it takes to upgrade us. > If anyone has time to look into this instead of me, let me know - I'd > prefer to do other stuff, but I think this is too important to let rot > anymore. To get an idea of what it would take see this doc: > > http://wiki.python.org/moin/TrackerDevelopment > > The Jython tracker is mentioned at the bottom of the doc - mainly you do > > hg clone http://hg.python.org/tracker/jython/ > > Instead of > > hg clone http://hg.python.org/tracker/roundup > > for one of the steps. > > -Frank > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer > Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 > and get the hardware for free! Learn more. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb > _______________________________________________ > Jython-dev mailing list > Jyt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-dev > |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2013-02-17 03:40:24
|
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jeff Allen <ja...py...@fa...> wrote: > I kept quiet for a while as I have little understanding of what is under the > covers of the trackers. I had assumed the Jython tracker was just the same > software as the Python one, with obvious configuration differences, and had > simply not kept up. The two repo histories seem to confirm this. With my > limited understanding, I'd have gone for the route you're taking for now. > > My first thought was that it would be needlessly confusing and probably a > bit unwelcome to the CPython team. People would want filtered views, and > those who study bug fix rates and backlogs would surely want separate scores > and summaries. Apart from the fact that the issue numbers form a single > sequence (which would help in certain contexts), that almost sounds like two > interfaces, albeit off a single infrastructure back stage. It sounds like it > would work technically. I think the business case would be that the work > involved in the interface development and renumbering everything exceeded > the maintenance of keeping the two in sync ( ... hinges on whether it does, > I mean). And the "human case" is more to do with comfort amongst, and > togetherness with, the CPython community. > > Support for Rietveld, as identified by Alan, looks like it would be useful > if we took a more sophisticated approach to review. I don't see why that > requires a single tracker as opposed to reproducing what CPython have done. I've come to the same conclusions. I had worried that adding the features of the CPython tracker would be too much work, but now that i've had a better look it seems to me that upgrading our tracker will not be that bad and will turn out to be the better path. -Frank |
From: Alan K. <jyt...@xh...> - 2013-02-17 06:35:48
|
[Frank] > I've come to the same conclusions. I had worried that adding the > features of the CPython tracker would be too much work, but now that > i've had a better look it seems to me that upgrading our tracker will > not be that bad and will turn out to be the better path. There is one more possibility (aside from upgrading our existing tracker in situ) 1. Setup a new roundup instance, as a fork of the existing cpython instance, in terms of config, plugins, etc. - Get properly configured for all the good stuff. 2. Import the contents of our existing tracker into it. 3. Repoint bugs.jython.org to the new instance. Which perhaps might make it easier? It would make it easier to track bugs.python.org, feature for feature. Might also make it easier to get assistance from the bugs.python.orgmaintainers. Alan. |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2013-02-17 19:10:29
|
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Alan Kennedy <jyt...@xh...> wrote: > [Frank] > >> I've come to the same conclusions. I had worried that adding the >> features of the CPython tracker would be too much work, but now that >> i've had a better look it seems to me that upgrading our tracker will >> not be that bad and will turn out to be the better path. > > There is one more possibility (aside from upgrading our existing tracker in > situ) > > 1. Setup a new roundup instance, as a fork of the existing cpython instance, > in terms of config, plugins, etc. > - Get properly configured for all the good stuff. > > 2. Import the contents of our existing tracker into it. > > 3. Repoint bugs.jython.org to the new instance. > > Which perhaps might make it easier? > > It would make it easier to track bugs.python.org, feature for feature. Might > also make it easier to get assistance from the bugs.python.org maintainers. This could turn out to be a good way to go. When I get to the part where I try to do data conversion of our existing tracker then this will be a good thing to consider. I am in direct contact with the primary bugs.python.org maintainer who has been eager to help, so I do believe this isn't going to be too bad. I think I already have a short term fix for cleaning up our versions mess. As soon as I get access to our tracker instance I'll see if I'm right (The CPython infrastructure has changed since the last time I worked on the tracker). -Frank |
From: Alan K. <jyt...@xh...> - 2013-02-17 21:14:33
|
[Frank] > This could turn out to be a good way to go. When I get to the part > where I try to do data conversion of our existing tracker then this > will be a good thing to consider. I am in direct contact with the > primary bugs.python.org maintainer who has been eager to help, so I do > believe this isn't going to be too bad. I think I already have a short > term fix for cleaning up our versions mess. As soon as I get access to > our tracker instance I'll see if I'm right (The CPython infrastructure > has changed since the last time I worked on the tracker). Maybe setup a tracker (meta-tracker?) issue to track the work involved in this? We might get to spread the workload and the knowledge that way. Alan. |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2013-02-19 05:45:45
|
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Alan Kennedy <jyt...@xh...> wrote: > Maybe setup a tracker (meta-tracker?) issue to track the work involved in > this? There actually is a meta-tracker for both the python-dev and jython trackers here: http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/ And there is space available for spinning up experimental trackers, so I should be able to test out migration strategies before poking the real bugs.jython.org site. > We might get to spread the workload and the knowledge that way. If anyone is interested in helping out, let me know. I think I have it under control so far, I even have the versions partially fixed (the new "Jython 2.7/2.5/2.2/2.1" at the top of versions - I still need to carefully remove the old versions). -Frank |
From: Julian K. <jul...@gm...> - 2013-02-19 12:05:56
|
Im interested in helping out where I can. :-) On 19 February 2013 07:45, fwi...@gm... <fwi...@gm...>wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Alan Kennedy <jyt...@xh...> > wrote: > > Maybe setup a tracker (meta-tracker?) issue to track the work involved in > > this? > There actually is a meta-tracker for both the python-dev and jython > trackers here: > http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/ > > And there is space available for spinning up experimental trackers, so > I should be able to test out migration strategies before poking the > real bugs.jython.org site. > > > We might get to spread the workload and the knowledge that way. > If anyone is interested in helping out, let me know. I think I have it > under control so far, I even have the versions partially fixed (the > new "Jython 2.7/2.5/2.2/2.1" at the top of versions - I still need to > carefully remove the old versions). > > -Frank > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb > _______________________________________________ > Jython-dev mailing list > Jyt...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-dev > |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2013-02-19 16:23:00
|
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Julian Kennedy <jul...@gm...> wrote: > Im interested in helping out where I can. :-) That's great! If you want to give our tracker and CPython's tracker a try - the directions are here: http://wiki.python.org/moin/TrackerDevelopment Jython has a small blurb on the bottom, and much of the directions don't yet apply to us, but hopefully soon we can get the other parts working too. -Frank P.S. Another area where you might be able to help is test_tarfile.py - something about bz2 is causing trouble there. P.P.S. Have you sent a contributor agreement to the CPython folks yet? All of your great patches are putting us over the threshold for that :) -Frank |
From: Julian K. <jul...@gm...> - 2013-02-19 18:08:25
|
Didnt know about the contributor agreement. Will get that done soon. Where is the best place to find information about that? On 19 February 2013 18:22, fwi...@gm... <fwi...@gm...>wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Julian Kennedy <jul...@gm...> > wrote: > > Im interested in helping out where I can. :-) > That's great! If you want to give our tracker and CPython's tracker a > try - the directions are here: > http://wiki.python.org/moin/TrackerDevelopment > > Jython has a small blurb on the bottom, and much of the directions > don't yet apply to us, but hopefully soon we can get the other parts > working too. > > -Frank > > P.S. Another area where you might be able to help is test_tarfile.py - > something about bz2 is causing trouble there. > > P.P.S. Have you sent a contributor agreement to the CPython folks yet? > All of your great patches are putting us over the threshold for that > :) > > -Frank > |
From: <fwi...@gm...> - 2013-02-19 18:39:54
|
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Julian Kennedy <jul...@gm...> wrote: > Didnt know about the contributor agreement. Will get that done soon. Where > is the best place to find information about that? Oh sorry! I thought I had asked before... The contributor agreement explanation is here: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ And the correct form is here (don't worry about the Jython one): http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-python/ Note that they want a user id from the cpython bug tracker (http://bugs.python.org) not ours. As part of this tracker upgrade I plan to add support for showing contributor agreements for our users. Thanks! -Frank |