> On 25-Mar-19 09:50, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hello, > > Le dim. 24 mars 2019 à 16:32, Michael <aixto...@felt.demon.nl> a écrit : >> Understood - and have, after I better understood the reluctance for any >> AIX related patch - took, I think it was yours (Victor) advice - worry >> about master, and when that is done (all test pass) - re-evaluate. > I told you that AIX is not my priority. Yes you have. For all clarity - I do not expect AIX to become a priority. > I have limited time to work on Python upstream, and so I make choices to > prioritize and organize my > time. I told you how I work so you can adjust your expectations in > term in availability of core developers. I contacted you, since I > guess that other core devs will not, and you was asking questions > about (the lack of) reviews. > > There is no such "reluctance" from me. Yes, this has been difficult to learn patience about reviews. I was trying to pace my comments to be pre-rc release. Once that process begins I do not expect any attention (aka priority). > It seems like your underestimate how much time I spent on your AIX > changes. Correct, that is not something I can estimate. And from your comment. I apologize for being a burden.
I also wonder if you underestimate the amount of time I have put into debugging before I come up with anything. Lets just say I am also surprised at the amount of time I have invested in CPython. > I had to not review other changes while reviewing your > changes. I had to not fix other bugs while looking at your bugs. Time > is precious :-) You likely also underestimate the cost of just basic > maintenance on Windows, macOS and Linux: just ensure that the CI is > "not broken": it's between 20% and 40% of my whole week. Not that much of my whole week, as I have a job. But for a few months it was nearly 100% of my free time. > Supporting a > new platform would only increase this ratio for me, whereas I would > like to reduce this ratio. Hopefully, slowly, I'm getting help on > maintainaing these platforms :-) Sometimes, I don't fix regressions, I > just report them. But producing an useful bug report requires a look a > little bit at the bug, it takes me a lot of time (more than what I > would like to spend). Yes, I am suffering especially in that area re: the "multi-processing" tests. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they do not. I had hoped my questions were recognizable by someone familiar (enough) with internals that I could then get some kind of forward motion. >> I have also already started maintaining my own forks for 2.7, and for a >> while 3.4 through 3.6. >> >> I have no issue doing the backports myself. I might need to learn some >> tricks with git to make it nearly automated, but I do not want to have >> the expectation that they will be considered, when in fact, there seems >> to be more aversion than willingness to accept. > All Linux distributions maintain downstream patches for whatever > reasons. There is a lot of tooling to help you in this task. Git is a > good start :-) I am trying to pursue the high-road. I do not submit a patch unless I have verified that it works on AIX 5.3 and, unmodified, can run on AIX 7.1 and AIX 6.1. I do not have ready access to an AIX 7.2 system with "install" access. i.e., I do not want to maintain a "distribution". My goal is to have a single package that installs without requiring multiple additional packages. IMHO, the apporach taken by others - who have different packages for each level/release (of AIX) only make life harder than necessary for admins to remain up to date. > >> I gave my word, and shall keep it. But only if I feel there is some >> level of acceptance. If you really do not want AIX supported - I am >> finally ready to accept the hint. I'll leave you all alone (and wish you >> well). > I told you how I work, it's a matter of priorities. For example, Red > Hat customers issues are more important than any Python upstream > issues for me ;-) Understood. And you have been very clear on this. I have tried to not ask (directly) you when it comes to AIX. And, whenever possible I also try to ask platform independent questions. > >> I too am a volunteer. I have no commercial benefit from anything I have >> done. Nor do I expect any from any future action. No manager of mine is >> encouraging me to do this - so no "bonus" at all. I hoped I was >> contr, buting. Because I have not hundreds, but clearly tens of replies from people saying "I am a volunteer", or "they are volunteers". All implying that I, somehow, must not be a "volunteer", i.e., being paid to pursue this. It is my free time, my systems, and my electric bill. So, what I am trying to make clear is that I am investing time and materials and am rather tired of the "they are volunteers" card - as if I am not giving something of myself. I hope that is more clear. In any case, I shall not bring it up again. > I'm not sure why you are writing that. > > Are you expecting that your changes deserve to be reviewed because you > are working on your free time on Python? Do you think that other > contributors are paid to write their changes? No. per above - I was getting the impression people thought I was paid. I - like many others - do this "as a volunteer" and hope that my "investment" is appreciated. If I am a burden, then per below, this is the wrong project. > If you expected to get rewarded, maybe you chose the wrong project :-) > Python doesn't work like that. The motto is "We are all volunteer" :-) :-) > >> So, to get back to core question: If I backport the patches to the >> failing tests will they be considered for merge? > Just to elaborate what I wrote previously: while I had limited time to > review AIX changes on the master branch, fixing issues specific to AIX > on 3.7 is a low priority for me. I only see 3.7 changes as a threat to > 3.7 stability. I'm talking about the general case, not the specific > case, so I'm always very careful with changes in stable branches. For > example, we are rejecting more and more bugfixes in 2.7 because of the > high risk of regressions introduced by subtle behavior changes, even > when the reported bug is severe (sadly, more and more severe bugs are > known). > > For AIX, my priority remains the master branch, and not all AIX > buildbots are green yet. a) to save you time, I have deactivated my bot. There is an issue re: xlc, because when I build using gcc the failure goes away. No point is generating noise. b) the bot on the gccfarm is passing all the tests, but comes up yellow because the admin had installed a third-party package that is not working with python. I have dug into enough to feel it could be a two-way street. In any case, python does not build the optional module "curses". On my bot, where I do not have this additional library installed (ncurses) python builds curses and the curses related tests pass. I understand that AIX is not a priority - but I did submit a PR to change setup.py to not build ncurses by default on AIX - as ncurses is always "third-party" and introduces an additional installation dependency. Relying the officially supported libcurses.a takes away several failures (and I would hope permit the gcc based bot to pass). fyi: for the "bot" I'll probably switch it to use gcc to remove this confusion. > The following bug seems severe, it's a crash: > https://bugs.python.org/issue36273 c) I'll look at this, and reply when I know more. > Victor Thank you for your time taken to read and consider my comments. Your comments are appreciated and I know your time is limited. Michael _______________________________________________ Python-Buildbots mailing list Python-Buildbots@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-buildbots
