Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> added the comment: Actually, I take it back. The default state of logging appears to do the right thing with no special handler installed - both the .critical() and .exception() messages are written out to stderr by default, so the futures tests pass even after Brian's patch is applied.
So I think removing the handler installation code is the right thing to do, even if (as it turns out) it doesn't fix the test failure. I also thought of a more minimal way to reproduce the test failure that makes it clear pydoc isn't really involved: ./python -m test test_concurrent_futures test_logging test_concurrent_futures The first execution of the test will pass, the second will fail (both with and without Brian's patch to remove the handler installation). Adding Vinay to the nosy list - I suspect Antoine is right that the logging tests are leaving existing loggers in a slightly unhealthy state. A better save/restore in regrtest.py might be a place to start, but I don't know the internals of the logging package well enough to improve on what I already added. ---------- nosy: +vinay.sajip _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10626> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
