Nevermind. While building the test case I figured out where I went wrong. I
had a subprocess pool that I forgot to close and it just grew out of hand.
I checked and twisted is running at 4 processes. Sounds better.
Thanks for all of the help.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
wrot
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Al Niessner wrote:
>
> Nevermind. While building the test case I figured out where I went wrong.
... and that right there is exactly why we request that those asking questions
build those types of examples ;-D
> I had a subprocess pool that I forgot to close and
I find the "semantic newlines" standard which we have been attempting to
enforce for documentation a constant source of annoyance.
Ostensibly, the purpose of using semantic newlines is to reduce the size of
diffs. However, given that we have oceans of documentation _not_ using this
style, we a
> On 5 Mar 2015, at 09:14, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>
> I find the "semantic newlines" standard which we have been attempting to
> enforce for documentation a constant source of annoyance.
>
> Ostensibly, the purpose of using semantic newlines is to reduce the size of
> diffs. However, given t
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 8:14 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>
> I find the "semantic newlines" standard which we have been attempting to
> enforce for documentation a constant source of annoyance.
>
> Ostensibly, the purpose of using semantic newlines is to reduce the size of
> diffs. However, give
On 5 Mar 2015, at 2:14, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
I find the "semantic newlines" standard which we have been attempting
to enforce for documentation a constant source of annoyance.
Ostensibly, the purpose of using semantic newlines is to reduce the
size of diffs. However, given that we have oce
