Menu
▾
▴
[Jython-bugs] [ jython-Patches-1634405 ] Patches for BUG: 1605847
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2007-01-20 17:23:27
|
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: None Status: Open Resolution: None 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: 2007-01-20 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 |