Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda :
--
nosy: -draghuram
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6210>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda :
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue9857>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Please check issue1322 for past discussion on similar topic (usability of
lsb_release in platform.py).
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue9
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda :
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6210>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda :
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue8828>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
As suggested, please post in c.l.py or other forums. Open a bug here only if
you are sure that there is a bug in Python.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> invalid
status: open -> closed
___
Python t
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda :
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue8692>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
> I am not sure I understand: currently Ctrl-C generates a
> KeyboardInterrupt, which can be caught by the application which can
> then decide how to proceed (in particular it can start another command
> loop or exit with a meaningfu
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Ilya Sandler wrote:
> Is not this patch backward incompatible?
>
> E.g any cmd-based application which expects Ctrl-C to propagate to the
> top level will be broken by this patch.
But currently, CTRL-C te
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
It is better for this functionality to be added in "Cmd" module as that
will benefit all users of that module. Please see bug #1294 which has a
patch for this purpose. It would be nice if you can test with that patch
and see if pdb works as yo
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda :
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6701>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda :
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6275>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda :
--
resolution: -> wont fix
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue974019>
___
___
Pyth
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda :
--
resolution: -> invalid
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue5409>
___
___
Pyth
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Andy Buckley wrote:
> Dang, why didn't I think of that? Cheers. Might be worth mentioning that
> in the documentation, in case there are other people with my particular
> brand of tunnel vision ;)
I am not
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Please use the fix suggested by Tim Gordon.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> works for me
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
> The attached patch is a proof of concept for throwing an exception.
If it is not too much of a problem, can you upload the patch to
http://codereview.appspot.com? Reviewing there is simpler. Also, you
will have to include some test cases in the pa
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Sorry, I had only given a quick look at Benjamin's patch, not yours.
> Actually Benjamin's patch does not seem to address anything, which makes
> things more confusing.
Tr
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
shutil_destinsrc.patch has both the code chage and two test cases.
Actually test cases are much longer than the code itself :-).
___
Python tracker
<h
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:35 PM, James Cooper wrote:
> This may not be a show-stopping bug, but it's non-obvious, annoying,
> unnecessary, and very easy to fix. Any chance of getting this into a
> release?
Considering that the issue is i
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
I had the same need in my small command line client (that uses Cmd.Cmd)
and I solved it by using shlex.split() instead of regular string split.
I haven't looked at optparse code lately and perhaps it can do the same.
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue4297>
___
_
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
--
nosy: -draghuram
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1210>
___
_
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue3187>
___
_
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Please take a look at #1322 for some discussion on this topic.
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.pytho
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
This seems to be duplicate of #1210.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> duplicate
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the purpose of the test is, allegedly, to "Verify that an open
> file can be stat'ed", it may be simpler to c
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
> The other failure is trivial, I've fixed it in r65780.
#1709112 has been reported earlier in relation to pagefile.sys. Your
patch addresses at least part of the problem there. I wonder if that
issue can be closed.
-
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
WindowsError issue is now fixed in r65644.
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.pytho
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
> Patch works under Windows.
Thanks. Can you please commit the change?
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.py
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
This is duplicate of 3134. I posted a patch there.
--
resolution: -> duplicate
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
I have submitted a patch (http://codereview.appspot.com/2384) for
WindowsError issue as it is reported in two other bugs #3134 and #2549.
I have only tested on Linux so I would appreciate if some one who have
access to windows ca
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
I submitted a patch at http://codereview.appspot.com/2384. Please take a
look.
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.pytho
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Richard King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Richard King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
>
> There were some other things I wanted too so I just made my own cmd.py.
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
This is same as #2549 which also reported the same problem. In fact, the
problem was originally found in #1545. As I said there, the proposed
patch has a very small problem. Can you please take a look?
--
nosy: +dra
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Richard, I see the following very clearly mentioned in the doc:
"If you want a given stdin to be used, make sure to set the instance’s
use_rawinput attribute to False, otherwise stdin will be ignored."
Even though
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Isn't this similar to #1608818?
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
--
nosy: +draghuram
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue3058>
___
_
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Is there any particular reason to assert for failed function at all?
This test seems to be for 'onerror' function and the test would be valid
even without asserting whether the failed API is 'remove'
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
I am not sure if copyfile() should be trying to copy named pipes (or any
other special files for that matter). The best way is perhaps to check
and skip such files.
--
nosy: +dra
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Similar problem has been reported in #2632 as well.
--
nosy: +draghuram
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.pytho
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Similar problem is reported in #2760.
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2632>
__
__
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Duplicate of #2710.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> duplicate
status: open -> closed
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
I forgot to add that the example provided in rst doc is incorrect. The
copytree() in that example should be given destination path as well. In
addition, the docstring for copytree mentions "which is a directory
list".
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
The patch looks good to me.
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2663>
__
___
Python
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
My update with email failed so I am just copying my response here:
> while working on the patch to add the same feature in rmtree, I realized
> this is a non sense since the root folder itself is removed at the end
>
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Is there any reason for rmtree also to not support this exclusion
feature? Both copytree and rmtree explicitly iterate over list of names
and as I see it, this exclusion is really about which names to ignore.
Already, copytr
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Can some one with commit privileges check in shutil_destinsrc.patch? The
change is rather simple and there is no point for issues such as these
to remain open for long time.
__
Tracker <[EMAIL
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
--
title: test_socket_ssl hanhs on Windows (deadlock) -> test_socket_ssl hangs on
Windows (deadlock)
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.py
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
I don't think this request is appropriate for bug tracker. If you are
really keen, bring it up on perhaps python-ideas mailing list.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> invalid
status:
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
--
nosy: +draghuram
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2663>
__
___
Python-bugs
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
The relevant python-dev thread is
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-April/078613.html
--
nosy: +draghuram
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.pytho
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
The doc for "cmd" at
http://docs.python.org/dev/library/cmd.html#module-cmd says:
"Instances of Cmd subclasses have some public instance variables:
.
.
.
Cmd.use_rawinput¶
A flag, defaulting to true. If
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
This problem has been noticed as part of issue1545 and a patch with the
fix has been proposed but has a small problem with it. Do you want to
take a look?
--
nosy: +draghuram
__
Tracker &
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
--
keywords: +easy
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2047>
__
___
Python-bugs
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
--
resolution: accepted -> fixed
status: open -> closed
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs
Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
I am closing it as invalid.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> invalid
status: open -> closed
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda:
--
nosy: +draghuram
_
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1524825>
_
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda:
--
nosy: +draghuram
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1714>
__
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubs
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
> The function is just a one liner in 2.6 and it's used in one place only.
> Let's move it into move().
Isn't it clear from this issue's original description that there is a
bug in th
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
> Should it get a _ prepended to it then?
Probably yes.
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2047>
__
___
P
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Joseph Armbruster
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On another note, I just completed building the docs in windows and
> shutil.destinsrc does not appear to be documented. I did notice this
> descrip
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
> Should this 'undesirable' behavior be documented? My thoughts are
Document should definitely reflect the code whether the behaviour is
desirable or not.
> a) All the key,value pairs in the named section be retrived from entire
> f
New submission from Raghuram Devarakonda:
ConfigParser.add_section() raises DuplicateSectionError if add_section()
is called with the name of a section that is already present. How ever,
if a section is present multiple times in a file, readfp() does not
raise any exception. Instead, the
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
This is as per the design. Please see
http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general/#why-can-t-raw-strings-r-strings-end-with-a-backslash.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> invalid
status: open -> closed
__
T
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
I am closing it as there is no activity for long time. Please reopen if
required.
--
nosy: +draghuram
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
> Raghuram, you've been too fast ;-)
Sorry about that :-) and thanks for validating the test cases.
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.pyt
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
no activity and no patch.
--
nosy: +draghuram
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Christian, do you mind testing on windows? I tested only on Linux.
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2047>
__
__
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
I added couple of test cases. Please see the patch shutil_destinsrc.patch.
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file9393/shutil_destinsrc.patch
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Can you write a test to catch this problem? The patch should preferably
be against the latest svn source.
--
nosy: +draghuram
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
looks to have been fixed.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> fixed
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda:
--
keywords: +patch
__
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2021>
__
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubs
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Closing as there is no activity for long time.
--
nosy: +draghuram
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
No activity for long time.
--
nosy: +draghuram
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
The patch "cfgdoc.diff" contains changes to rst as well as to the doc
string. Can some one please review it?
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file9354/cfgdoc.diff
_
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<htt
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
This has evolved into a general discussion without any specific
direction (which is more suitable for a mailing list than in a bug
tracker). So I am closing it. Please do reopen if required.
I don't know what resolution to select for this one. None o
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda:
--
components: +Documentation -Library (Lib)
versions: +Python 2.6 -Python 2.3
_
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/iss
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
The following two statements from ConfigParser document clearly mention
that what is passed in 'vars' are defaults and defaults come into
picture only when values are not explicitly set.
"Default values can be specified by passin
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
With the latest python, get() itself fails with boolean value default. I
tried with this script:
-
from ConfigParser import ConfigParser
cfg = ConfigParser({'var':True})
cfg.add_section('test_section')
print cfg.getboolean(
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
test_socket.py now seems to use dynamically computed port number so
there should not be any port number conflicts.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> out of date
status: open -> closed
_
Tracker &
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda:
--
nosy: +draghuram
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue974019>
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Yet another one.
--
nosy: +draghuram, georg.brandl
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue800929>
__
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Not really sure if this applies to new docs. I will let Georg close this
one :-).
--
nosy: +draghuram, georg.brandl
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/is
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda:
--
resolution: -> wont fix
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue799088>
_
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
For the record, the latest Lib/distutils/sysconfig.py still seems to
have this behaviour (please correct me if I am wrong). I am closing this
as there is no activity for quite some time.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> wont fix
status: o
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
no activity. Please do reopen if the offer still stands.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> out of date
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
I know that Senthil has been working on consolidating url related
functionalities so I am adding him to the list.
--
nosy: +draghuram, orsenthil
versions: +Python 2.6, Python 3.0
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTEC
Changes by Raghuram Devarakonda:
--
resolution: -> rejected
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue606733>
_
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
We are back to square 1 :-). Your patch incorporates Facundo's
suggestion which is 'rename(src_file, dst_dir/`basename src_file`). It
is not clear to me from rereading the earlier comments whether Guido
rejected this approach or not. I would
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
The latest Makefile.pre.in does have this change (@CPPFLAGS@ is appended).
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> fixed
status: open -> closed
versions: +Python 2.6 -Python 2.3
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
I am assuming that this can be closed considering that there is no
activity for a long time.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> out of date
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Hi Antoine,
You stated the following in a previous comment:
"Right now, shutil.move(src_dir, dst_dir) replaces dst_dir with src_dir
if dst_dir is empty, but moves src_dir inside dst_dir otherwise."
But my test shows differently. If dst_dir doe
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
I see no chance of this being accepted now that optparse is entrenched.
Please do reopen if some one thinks otherwise.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> rejected
status: open -> closed
Tracker &
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Please reopen if the problem can be reproduced in 2.5 or later.
--
resolution: -> out of date
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Please reopen if the problem can be reproduced with latest version.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> works for me
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
no activity. closing it.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> wont fix
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
Considering that there is no activity for long time, is it worthwhile to
keep this open?
--
nosy: +draghuram
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/is
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
This is a duplicate of a more recently opened #1230540.
--
nosy: +draghuram
resolution: -> duplicate
status: open -> closed
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.
Raghuram Devarakonda added the comment:
> Does this mean we should preserve this behaviour for shutil.move() as well?
I don't think so. The key is to remember that shutil.move() is
os.rename() with some additional benefits (as stated by Guido in an
earlier comment). Also, changing the b
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo