On Friday 03 October 2003 15:33, Chris McDonough wrote:

Jim is keen to get an audit going quickly before a 2.7 final release, and the audit would be performed against Python 2.3.2.

Does anyone else have an interest in blessing Zope 2.6.x with Python 2.2/2.3 ? -- Toby Dickenson

On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 10:58, Andrew Sawyers wrote:

I don't know about 'blessing', but I'm using it on a project currently (Python 2.3 and Zope 2.6.2) without glitches. Andrew

Toby Dickenson wrote:

...

Does anyone else have an interest in blessing Zope 2.6.x with Python 2.2/2.3 ?

We have deployed Zope 2.6.2 with Python 2.2.3 in production for clients already; the garbage collection improvements in Python 2.2.3 were so compelling that we couldn't reasonably roll them back to Python 2.1.3 after testing. Tres. -- =============================================================== Tres Seaver tseaver@zope.com Zope Corporation "Zope Dealers" http://www.zope.com

--On Samstag, 4. Oktober 2003 10:20 Uhr +0300 Myroslav Opyr <myroslav@zope.net.ua> wrote:

Not sure if it was Python itself or some 3rd party product like TextIndexNG but the issues arised.

There is no such problem with TextIndexNG. -aj

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:33:01AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:

Well, to be clear, there hasn't been any formal security audit of the combination of Python 2.2 with Zope 2.7. So we'd lose nothing by moving directly to 2.3. Jim is keen to get an audit going quickly before a 2.7 final release, and the audit would be performed against Python 2.3.2.

then by all means, 2.3.2. These audits seem to be hard to get going on a regular basis (we've been on python 2.1.3 for how long now?) so I see no point in blessing a version of python that's already not latest-and-greatest. The only counterargument i can think of is that 2.3 may not be bundled with many linux distros yet. I've always compiled my own python for use with zope, so I don't know how big a deal that is. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com Look! Up in the sky! It's THE BRIGHT ZACH! (random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)

OK, sounds like a slam dunk to me. I have changed the Zope 2.7 windows builder to use Python 2.3.2 and I have changed the source version configure script to look for 2.3.2 as it's "optimal" version. This all appears to work. Once an RPM is released for Python 2.3.2, I'll change the spec file for the Zope RPM release to depend on that instead of a 2.2.3 RPM. Currently, Zope still claims it works with 2.2.X (via the configure script's "acceptable versions" feature). Should we continue to make that claim true by not depending on any Python 2.3-specific features in the Zope core? I don't think there are a lot of super-compelling core and/or library differences between Pythons 2.3.2 and 2.2.3 that would make this a hardship on core Zope developers. - C On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 11:30, Tim Peters wrote:

[Chris McDonough]

...

...

Some people at ZC have made pretty compelling arguments to make Python 2.3.2 the "recommended" version of Python to use with Zope 2.7 final. I'm wondering if other people have a strong feeling about this either way.

[george donnelly]

...

yes please. :) python 2.3 seems a lot faster to me and even quite stable so far.

or did you mean 2.2.3?

Chris did mean 2.3.2, which is still unfamiliar to most because it was just released today:

http://www.python.org/2.3.2/

This came very soon after the 2.3.1 release, and just fixes a few gross but obscure platform-specific packaging mistakes in 2.3.1. In reality and with benefit of hindsight, what was released as 2.3.1 "should have been" released as 2.3.1c1 (release candidate 1), and then 2.3.2 should have been released as 2.3.1 final.

Regardless, 2.3.2 is the best Python in existence (by any criterion other than "identical to 1.5.2" <wink>).

_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) -- Chris McDonough <chrism@zope.com> Zope Corporation

[Chris McDonough]

...

Currently, Zope still claims it works with 2.2.X (via the configure script's "acceptable versions" feature).

Actually, 2.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2 aren't acceptable for Zope even now, because of Zope-critical Python bugs first fixed in 2.2.3. There's no version of 2.2 with a fix for the rare RH9 Unicode-segfault bug Jeremy stumbled into a few weeks ago (while running Zope tests), and there may never be.

...

Should we continue to make that claim true by not depending on any Python 2.3-specific features in the Zope core? I don't think there are a lot of super-compelling core and/or library differences between Pythons 2.3.2 and 2.2.3 that would make this a hardship on core Zope developers.

I don't know whether it's a hardship for anyone to install 2.3.2 but not to install 2.2.3. Seems unlikely <wink>. In the spambayes project, we've found that people just can't stop themselves from using the new-in-2.3 enumerate() builtin, and the new-in-2.3 Sets module. They're generally useful. Since 2.2.3 is slower and buggier than 2.3.2, and may be the last of the 2.2 line, I'm not sure we'd be doing anyone a real favor by facilitating hanging on to 2.2.3. [Fred L. Drake, Jr.]

Requiring 2.3 (any flavor) would allow us to drop the copy of the logging package from Zope 2.7 and newer.

There are greater benefits for Zope 3, where we have several modules and packages laying around that would no longer be needed (logging, csv, gettext).

Plus I copy 2.3's strptime.py module into Zope3 now (and have to edit it each time I synch up to get rid of its enumerate() call), and Zope3 has a different all-Python implementation of the new-in-2.3 all-C datetime module. The C version of datetime is more desirable due to its comparative memory frugality. One more: We're trying to move toward replacing ExtensionClass with new-style classes. This is straightforward under 2.3, but there's still a relevant glitch in 2.2.3 that appears to make it much harder (that's why the code on zodb3-devel-branch works fine under 2.3 but segfaults left and right under 2.2.3; zodb3-devel-branch is quiet now, but will probably become important again).

I also don't know that we should consider 2.3.1 "acceptable" for any version of Zope.

2.3.1 is missing os.fsync() on POSIX systems (a gross mistake that snuck into 2.3.1), and MvL's arguments notwithstanding, ZODB wants to use os.fsync() on POSIX systems. 2.3.1 was a mistake, but a mistake that got fixed quickly.