[issue23917] please fall back to sequential compilation when concurrent doesn't exist

Berker Peksag added the comment: Thanks Claudiu. -- nosy: +berker.peksag resolution: -> fixed stage: commit review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue23917] please fall back to sequential compilation when concurrent doesn't exist

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 572dc6bdc0a3 by Berker Peksag in branch 'default': Issue #23917: Fall back to sequential compilation when ProcessPoolExecutor doesn't exist. https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/572dc6bdc0a3 -- nosy: +python-dev __

[issue23917] please fall back to sequential compilation when concurrent doesn't exist

Brett Cannon added the comment: LGTM -- stage: patch review -> commit review ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue23917] please fall back to sequential compilation when concurrent doesn't exist

Claudiu Popa added the comment: Here's the patch. -- keywords: +patch stage: needs patch -> patch review Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file39132/issue23917.patch ___ Python tracker

[issue23917] please fall back to sequential compilation when concurrent doesn't exist

Claudiu Popa added the comment: Will do, thanks. -- assignee: -> Claudiu.Popa stage: -> needs patch type: -> behavior ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue23917] please fall back to sequential compilation when concurrent doesn't exist

New submission from Matthias Klose: issue #16104 introduces parallel byte compilation, however the method is now overly strict when workers > 1 and no concurrent support available. Please just fall back to sequential byte compilation in this case. -- components: Library (Lib) messages