Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'bug': 0.02; 'subject:bug': 0.04; 'fixes': 0.05; 'received:verizon.net': 0.07; 'suite.': 0.07; 'terry': 0.07; 'problem:': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229.12': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'received:lo.gmane.org': 0.09; 'release.': 0.09; 'fixed.': 0.15; '2.7.2': 0.16; 'exposes': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'released.': 0.16; 'subject:ever': 0.16; 'examples': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'jan': 0.19; 'subject:information': 0.21; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'tests.': 0.23; 'code': 0.25; 'fix': 0.27; 'bugs': 0.28; 'version,': 0.28; 'weird': 0.29; 'fixed': 0.29; 'problem': 0.29; 'second': 0.29; 'pm,': 0.29; 'chris': 0.30; 'least': 0.30; 'usually': 0.31; 'subject:?': 0.31; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.33; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.33; 'there': 0.33; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.34; 'test': 0.35; 'minimal': 0.37; 'but': 0.37; "there's": 0.37; 'enough': 0.38; 'received:org': 0.38; 'couple': 0.38; 'subject:from': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'show': 0.67; 'dealing': 0.69; 'exhibiting': 0.73; 'hundred': 0.74; 'hole': 0.84 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Terry Reedy Subject: Re: Multiprocessing bug, is information ever omitted from a traceback? Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 18:57:00 -0500 References: <3d377e6e-3da3-4e94-9e3f-999557488211@c16g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <41081049-1047-41ca-b7c1-5e5c3c00e94b@f33g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <4EE3A726.6010201@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-74-109-121-73.phlapa.fios.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1323561450 news.xs4all.nl 6937 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:42272 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:16971 On 12/10/2011 2:02 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > There's a few differences between 2.6 and 2.7; not usually enough to > be concerned about in daily use, but when dealing with weird issues, > it helps to have the latest release. There are 2 issues. First, 2.7.2 has perhaps a couple hundred bug fixes since 2.7.0/2.6.6 were released. So it is possible that this particular problem was fixed, or at least changed. Second (leaving security issues aside), a Py2 bug fix will only be applied to the post-2.7.2 tip and only after the bug has been demonstrated to exist in the post-2.7.2 tip. About the request for minimal code exhibiting the problem: each bug exposes a hole in the test suite. We try to add a new test case with each bug fix so fixed bugs stay fixed. So code examples not only show that the bug is in the latest version, but also serve as the basis for new tests. -- Terry Jan Reedy