[issue665194] datetime-RFC2822 roundtripping

R. David Murray added the comment: Alexander, this slipped off my radar. Some of the tests Brian added fail with the patch applied. I fixed most of them by adding back the support for converting an aware datetime to an aware localtime. The remaining two I believe are what you are fixing with

[issue665194] datetime-RFC2822 roundtripping

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: I'll take a look tomorrow morning. (EDT:-) -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mai

[issue15750] test_localtime_daylight_false_dst_true raises OverflowError: mktime argument out of range

R. David Murray added the comment: So you are saying that if the current timezone is UTC, FreeBSD's mktime just arbitrarily returns -1 for any time passed to it with the 'guess the DST flag' value set for is_dst? And for is_dst set to 1 as well? This isn't mentioned on the FreeBSD man page f

[issue665194] datetime-RFC2822 roundtripping

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: I noticed this part: +# We have an aware datetime. Use aware datetime arithmetic to find the +# seconds since the epoch. +delta = dt - datetime.datetime(*time.gmtime(0)[:6], + tzinfo=datetime.t

[issue665194] datetime-RFC2822 roundtripping

R. David Murray added the comment: Heh, I was just copying the previous code, and didn't think about being able to update it. Will make that change. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue15750] test_localtime_daylight_false_dst_true raises OverflowError: mktime argument out of range

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: > So you are saying that if the current timezone is UTC, FreeBSD's mktime > just arbitrarily returns -1 for any time passed to it with the 'guess > the DST flag' value set for is_dst? I don't know about FreeBSD, but I recall seeing a comment in mxDT source

[issue665194] datetime-RFC2822 roundtripping

R. David Murray added the comment: And my tests and code were wrong, and I was wrong about what you were trying to fix. So since the other tests were passing before, presumably there is some test that could be added to exercise the bug you were fixing. Do you remember what that was? ---

[issue15316] runpy swallows ImportError information with relative imports

Changes by Chris Jerdonek : -- keywords: +3.2regression ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://

[issue665194] datetime-RFC2822 roundtripping

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: > So since the other tests were passing before, presumably there > is some test that could be added to exercise the bug you were > fixing. Do you remember what that was? Yes, the issue was the one that was mentioned in an XXX comment: in many places UTC

[issue15759] "make suspicious" doesn't display instructions in case of failure

New submission from Ezio Melotti: I was running "make suspicious" in Doc/ and this was the output after finding 3 suspicious markups: writing output... [ 52%] library/inspect WARNING: [library/inspect:437] ":int" found in ">>> def foo(a, *, b:int, **kwargs):" WARNING: [library/inspect:437]

[issue15746] test_winsound bombing out on 2003 buildslave

Trent Nelson added the comment: Affirmative: E:\Apps\activestate-python-2.7.2.5-x86>python ActivePython 2.7.2.5 (ActiveState Software Inc.) based on Python 2.7.2 (default, Jun 24 2011, 12:21:10) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more info

[issue7741] Allow multiple statements in code.InteractiveConsole.push

Kristján Valur Jónsson added the comment: What's the purpose of the new patch, particularly 2/2 since it is equivalent to multiple push() calls? I.e. since this issue has laid dormant for two years, what prompts the sudden activity? -- ___ Python tr

<    1   2