The threading module has very few methods with docstrings. Docstrings should be added to all public methods (contents can be borrowed from the documentation).

Threading module docstrings added for all classes and public methods; mainly used a summarised version of information from the documentation.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 07:39, Graeme Cross <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> Graeme Cross <gjcross@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> Threading module docstrings added for all classes and public methods;
> mainly used a summarised version of information from the documentation.
>

Thanks for the patch, Graeme.
I will try to find time to review and apply it in a few days, if no one else
will do it until then.

Eli

Graeme - could you specify which version of Python this patch applies to?

The patch applies to tip.

The usual procedure for committing to both 3.2 and 3.3 is to apply a patch to 3.2 and then merge it to 3.3 - could you check if the patch also works for 3.2 and if not, generate a patch for 3.2? I will do the merge when committing.

I have made a review on Rietveld.

Éric, yeah I received an email. Hopefully Graeme did too.

It's a shame a new review isn't notified in the tracker instead.

I will check that the patch works with 3.2; if not, I'll redo the patch for 3.2.
I will also incorporate the review changes from Ezio and Eric.

Graeme, any news on this?

If you re-do the patch for current tip and address the review comments, I think we can commit it.

Hi

Is this still open to work on ?

If yes, what were the review comments from the previous review?

moijes,

Yes, it's open. You can examine the comments for the previous patch by clicking on the "review" link near the patch. You need to be logged in to the issue tracker to see that.

I've attached a new patch with some changes.

moijes, did you address the review comments?

Does your patch apply to 3.2?

Hi 

I am seen the review comments and made the changes accordingly. I am not sure if my changes apply to 3.2. How do I do that ?

3.2$ hg imp --no-c http://bugs.python.org/file29268/12768_2.patch
applying http://bugs.python.org/file29268/12768_2.patch
patching file Lib/threading.py
Hunk #3 FAILED at 58
Hunk #4 FAILED at 79
Hunk #5 FAILED at 92
Hunk #6 FAILED at 125
Hunk #10 FAILED at 252
Hunk #12 succeeded at 386 with fuzz 1 (offset 82 lines).
Hunk #13 FAILED at 317
Hunk #17 FAILED at 405
Hunk #22 FAILED at 576
Hunk #23 FAILED at 589
Hunk #30 FAILED at 897
Hunk #33 succeeded at 1124 with fuzz 2 (offset 132 lines).
10 out of 35 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file Lib/threading.py.rej
abort: patch failed to apply

>  I am not sure if my changes apply to 3.2. How do I do that ?

You have to switch to the 3.2 branch using "hg up 3.2", and then use "hg import" as showed above to apply the patch.  You will also need to run configure/make again to build 3.2, so you can run tests.

FWIW it applies cleanly on 3.3, but unless we decide to target 3.3+ only, the patch needs to be adapted for 2.7/3.2.

I wouldn't expend too much effort on older versions though. So unless it's simple to adapt, IMHO 3.3+ is good enough.

This patch was built on 3.2(I made the changes on the local repo after running command "hg up 3.2"). I've run the test suite and only test_site failed. This patch has some improvements over 12768_2.patch.

I haven't read the patch in detail but I think the reference to Java's threading model could probably be discarded. First, I don't know if it's still true, second, I don't think anyone cares :)

> I haven't read the patch in detail but I think the reference to Java's
> threading model could probably be discarded. First, I don't know if it's
> still true, second, I don't think anyone cares :)
>
>
I agree. It could be a remnant of a time where the threading library was
very new and so it helped "relating" it to something familiar. These days
there are (thankfully) many programmers coming to Python without any Java
background.

See also #17375

Hi

Since this is a duplicate of #17375, is the patch not going to make to the review stage at all?

moijes12, since Raymond went ahead and committed a patch to 2.7 in #17375, I think patches to other versions should also be based on his patch. The most constructive thing you can do at this point is review his changes in 2.7 and help porting them to 3.x. Also, you can see if anything is missing/wrong since you've gained some experience about the module while writing the docstrings.

I'm sorry it went like that; don't take it personally - open-source development is a bazaar :-)

Issue #17375 supersedes this one. Please post updated patches there.