On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > (Continuing a side topic of a different discussion) > > Steve Holden <st...@holdenweb.com> writes: > >> I think that [Python 2.6 was a rushed release]. 2.6 showed it in the >> inclusion (later recognizable as somewhat ill-advised so late in the >> day) of multiprocessing […] > > What was ill-advised about the addition of the 'multiprocessing' > module to Python 2.6? I ask because I haven't yet used it in anger, > and am not sure what problems have been found in it. > > -- > \ "Holy bouncing boiler-plated fits, Batman!" —Robin | > `\ | > _o__) | > Ben Finney > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
I might write a longer blog post about this later, but I can see Steve's point of view. The fact is, pyprocessing/multiprocessing was a late addition to Python 2.6. Personally, I was game to put it into either 2.7 or 2.6, but I felt inclusion into 2.6 wasn't completely out of question - and others agreed with me. See these mail threads: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-May/079417.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-June/080011.html And so on. All of that being said; the initial conversion and merging of the code into core exposed a lot of bugs I and others didn't realize were there in the first place. I take full responsibility for that - however some of those bugs were in python-core itself (deadlock after fork anyone?). So, the road to inclusion was a bit rougher than I initially thought - I relied heavily on the skills of people who had more experience in the core than I did, and it was disruptive to the release schedule of python 2.6 due to both the bugs and instability. I however; disagree that this was ultimately a bad decision, or that it was some how indicative of a poorly managed or rushed 2.6 release. All releases have bugs, and towards the end of the 2.6 cycle, multiprocessing *was not* the release blocker. After 2.6 went out, I had a small wave of bugs filed against multiprocessing that I've been working through bit by bit (I still need to work on BSD/Solaris issues) and some of the bugs have exposed issues I simply wish weren't there but I think this is true of any package, especially one as complex as multiprocessing is. I know of plenty of people using the package now, and I know of several groups switching to 2.6 as quickly as possible due to its new features, bug fixes/etc. Multiprocessing as a package is not bug free - I'm the first to admit that - however it is useful, and being used and frankly, I maintain that it is just one step in a larger project to bring additional concurrency and distributed "stuff" into python-core over time. So yes, I see Steve's point - multiprocessing *was* disruptive, and it inclusion late in the game siphoned off resources that could have been used elsewhere. Again, I'll take the responsibility for soiling the pool this way. I do however think, that python 2.6 is overall a *fantastic* release both feature wise, quality wise and is quite useful for people who want to "get things done" (tm). Now I'm going to go back to fixing bugs. -jesse -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
