This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Title: More flexibility in zipfile write interface
Type: enhancement Stage: resolved
Components: Library (Lib) Versions: Python 3.6
Status: closed Resolution: fixed
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: serhiy.storchaka Nosy List: Dhiraj_Mishra, martin.panter, mbussonn, python-dev, serhiy.storchaka, takluyver
Priority: normal Keywords: patch

Created on 2016-01-07 15:10 by takluyver, last changed 2022-04-11 14:58 by admin. This issue is now closed.

File name Uploaded Description Edit
zipfile-flexibility.patch takluyver, 2016-01-07 15:10 review
zipfile-open-w.patch takluyver, 2016-01-15 17:54 review
zipinfo-from-file.patch takluyver, 2016-01-17 10:48 ZipInfo.from_file() classmethod review
zipinfo-from-file2.patch takluyver, 2016-01-27 00:02 ZipInfo.from_file() + docs + tests review
zipfile-open-w2.patch takluyver, 2016-01-27 14:41 mode='w') + docs + tests review
zipfile-open-w3.patch takluyver, 2016-01-29 12:08 mode='w') after vadmium's review review
zipinfo-from-file3.patch takluyver, 2016-01-29 12:14 ZipInfo.from_file() after vadmium's review review
zipinfo-from-file4.patch takluyver, 2016-01-29 14:10 ZipInfo.from_file() after storchaka's review review
zipinfo-from-file5.patch takluyver, 2016-01-30 12:18 ZipInfo.from_file() after storchaka's 2nd review review
zipfile-open-w4.patch takluyver, 2016-01-30 15:49 mode='w') after vadmium's 2nd review review socketpair, 2016-03-27 20:29 example of monkey-patching
zipfile-open-w5.patch takluyver, 2016-04-06 00:16 review
zipfile-open-w6.patch takluyver, 2016-04-25 11:20 review
zipfile-open-w7.patch takluyver, 2016-04-26 09:30 review
zipfile-open-w8.patch takluyver, 2016-04-26 11:01 review
zipfile-open-w9.patch serhiy.storchaka, 2016-05-11 17:14 review
zipfile-open-w-exceptions.patch serhiy.storchaka, 2016-05-14 20:59 review
zipfile-flex-bonus.patch takluyver, 2016-05-14 22:02 review
zipfile-flex-bonus2.patch takluyver, 2016-05-15 08:05 review
Messages (58)
msg257694 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-07 15:10
I was working recently on some code writing zip files, and needed a bit more flexibility than the interface of zipfile provides. To do what I wanted, I ended up copying the entirety of ZipFile.write() into my own code with modifications. That's ugly, and to make it worse, the code I copied from the Python 3.4 stdlib didn't work properly with Python 3.5.

Specifically, I want to:

* Override the timestamp, which write() unconditionally takes from the mtime of the file.
* Do extra processing on the data (e.g. calculating a checksum) as it is read. Being able to pass a file-like object in to be read, rather than just a filename, would work for this.

I could do both by using ZipFile.writestr(), but then the entire file must be loaded into memory at once, which I would much rather avoid.

The patch attached is one proposal which would make it easier to do what I want, but it's intended as a starting point for discussion. I'm not particularly attached to the API.

- Should this be a new method, or new functionality for either the write or writestr method? I favour a new method, because the existing methods are already quite long, and I think it's nicer to break write() up into two parts like this.

- If a new method, what should it be called? I opted for writefile()

- What should its signature be? It's currently writefile(file_obj, zinfo, force_zip64=False), but I can see an argument for aligning it with writestr(zinfo_or_arcname, data, compress_type=None).

- What to do about ZIP64: the code has to decide whether to use ZIP64 format before writing, because it affects the header size, but we may not know the length before we have read it all. I've used a force_zip64 boolean parameter, and documented that people should pass it True if a file of unknown size could exceed 2 GiB.

- Are there other points where it could be made more flexible while we're thinking about this? I'd quite like to split out the code for writing a directory entry to a separate method ('writedir'?). I'd also like to allow datetime objects to be passed in for timestamps as well as the 6-tuples currently expected.
msg257696 - (view) Author: Matthias Bussonnier (mbussonn) * Date: 2016-01-07 15:53
from the last blog post of [Brett Cannon][1], I would say that he might be interested in Participating to this discussion (Rewrite zipimport from scratch section)

Though I'm not sure about the etiquette to ping someone on such an issue.

msg257697 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-01-07 16:07
issue11980 has a patch that adds a method for writing a file into the ZIP archive.

But more flexible way is to add the support of the "w" mode to This will allow to write a data that doesn't exist in memory at once, nor in disk, but is loaded by chunks from the pipe, or from the socket, or from other archive, or just generated on fly. I'm worked on this, but this feature needed to add support of some other features. For example writing to unseekable file (already implemented) or writing and reading a file without known size (not implemented still).

issue18595 has a proposition to add special methods for creating symlinks, directories etc.
msg258313 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-15 17:54
Attached is a first go at a patch enabling, mode='w')

Files must be written sequentially, so you have to close one writing handle before opening another. If you try to open a second one before closing the first, it will raise RuntimeError. I considered doing something where it would write to temporary files and add them to the zip file when they were closed, but it seemed like a bad idea.

You can almost certainly break this by reading from a zip file while there's an open writing handle. Resolving this is tricky because there's a disconnect in the requirements for reading and writing: writing allows for a non-seekable output stream, but reading assumes that you can seek freely. The simplest fix is to block reading while there is an open file handle. I don't think many people will need to read one file from a zip while writing another, anyway.

I have used the lock, but I haven't thought carefully about thread safety, so that should still be checked carefully.
msg258459 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-17 10:48
zipinfo-from-file.patch has an orthogonal but related change: the code in ZipFile.write() to construct a ZipInfo object from a filesystem file is pulled out to a classmethod ZipInfo.from_file().

Together, these changes make it much easier to control how a file is written to a zip file, like this:

zi = ZipInfo.from_file(blah)
# ... manipulate zi...
with open(blah, 'rb') as src,, 'w') as dest:
    # copy of the read/write loop - maybe this should be
    # pulled out separately as well?

If these changes make it in, I might put a backported copy of the module on PyPI so I can start using it without waiting for Python 3.6.
msg258949 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-26 11:19
Serhiy, any chance you'd have some time to review my patch(es)? Or is there someone else interested in zipfile I might interest? Thanks :-)
msg258958 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-01-26 14:17
Your patches are great Thomas! This is just what I want to implement. It will take some time to make a careful review. Besides possible corrections I think these features will be added in 3.6. But new features need tests and documenting.
msg258959 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-26 14:19
Thanks! I will work on docs and tests.
msg259022 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-27 14:41
The '2' versions of the two different patches include some docs and tests for these new features.
msg259184 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-01-29 01:48
I left some review comments.

Since the rules for read-only and write-only access are so different, would it make more sense to have a separate method? Maybe your writefile() name, or open_write() or something? I am not too fussed, but unless there is a chance of being able to open a read-write random access file, I find these split-personality open() methods a bit “un-Pythonic”. On the other hand, I guess it is superficially consistent with other open() functions.

Also, perhaps if you guaranteed the write-only option returned a file-like object, you could use shutil.copyfileobj() rather than a custom read-write loop.
msg259206 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-29 12:08
Here's a new version of the patch following Martin's review (thanks Martin!).

I agree that it feels a bit awkward having two completely different actions for, but it is a familiar interface, and since the mode parameter is already there, it requires a minimum of new public API. But I'm happy to add a new method like open_write() or write_handle() if people prefer that.

The comments on the other patch are minimal, I'll put a new version of that together as well.
msg259209 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-29 14:10
Thanks Serhiy for review comments.
msg259255 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-30 12:18
Updated version of the ZipInfo.from_file() patch attached.
msg259258 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-01-30 15:49
Thanks Martin for more review; updated open-to-write patch attached.
msg259553 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-02-04 09:41
Is there anything more I should be doing with either of these patches? I think I've incorporated all review comments I've seen. Thanks!
msg259805 - (view) Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev) (Python triager) Date: 2016-02-07 22:05
New changeset 7fea2cebc604 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default':
Issue #26039: Added zipfile.ZipInfo.from_file() and zipinfo.ZipInfo.is_dir().
msg259806 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-02-07 22:14
Committed zipinfo-from-file5.patch. Now I'm starting to review zipfile-open-w4.patch (I concurred with most Martin's comments for previous patches).
msg259833 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-02-08 09:55
Thanks Serhiy! I'll keep an eye out for comments on the other patch.
msg260305 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-02-15 10:37
Hi Serhiy, any more comments on the patch?
msg260733 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-02-23 14:01
Ping! ;-)
msg260734 - (view) Author: Dhiraj (Dhiraj_Mishra) * Date: 2016-02-23 14:16
Please ha Look on issue 11980
Already have been Patched
msg260746 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-02-23 21:52
Thanks for the pointer Dhiraj. I prefer the open(mode="w") version proposed here, as being more flexible. This way you could wrap the writer object in e.g. TextIOWrapper. The other patch requires passing in a file reader object.

Having another look at zipfile-open-w4.patch, I have some thoughts about locking and the writing-while-reading restriction:

The lock seems to be designed to serialize reads and writes (which operate on the common underlying file object). See revision 4973ccd46e32, and <>, although it would be good to document this, or at the minimum add a comment explaining the purpose and scope of the lock.

Currently, it appears that write() and writestr() acquire the lock, so I presume it is intended that these methods can be called multiple times concurrently, and also while the zip file is being read. With the patch, writestr() still preserves the lock usage, but write() does not because it is now implemented in terms of the new open(mode="w") method.

I think it would be good to clarify that the lock does _not_ protect concurrent writes via open(mode="w").
msg260808 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-02-24 14:50
My initial patch would have allowed passing a readable file-like object into zipfile. I was persuaded that allowing to return a writable object was a more intuitive and flexible API.

Concurrent writes with'w') should be impossible, because it only allows one open handle at a time. It still uses the lock inside _ZipWriteFile, so concurrent writes to a single handle should be serialised.

I would not recommend anyone try to do concurrent access to a single ZipFile object from multiple threads or coroutines. It's quite stateful, there is no mention of concurrency in the docs, and no tests I can see that try concurrent access. The only thing that might be safe is reading from two files inside the zip file (which shouldn't be changed by this), but I wouldn't want to guarantee even that.
msg260810 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-02-24 14:56
Oh, I see test_interleaved now, which does test overlapping reads of two files from the same zip file.

Do you want that clarified in the docs - which don't currently mention the lock at all - or in a comment in the module?
msg260852 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-02-25 12:12
When you say concurrent writes should be impossible, I guess that only applies to a single-threaded program. There is no lock protecting the “self._fileRefCnt > 1” check and related manipulation (not that I am saying there should be).

For serializing concurrent writes to a single handle, if that is intended it should be documented. If it is not intended, maybe it should be removed (my preference)?

It would be good to wait if Serhiy can explain the purpose of the lock, seeing he was involved in adding it and probably knows a lot more about this module than I.
msg261162 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-03-03 12:04
Serhiy, have you had a chance to look at what the'w') patch does with the lock?
msg261168 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-03-03 15:55
Sorry for the delay Thomas. This is complex and important to me issue and I want to be attentive to it.

I think we should preserve long existing behavior even if it is not documented (documenting or deprecating it is other issue). Concurrent reading and wring with concurrent reading always (at least since adding worked, but was never documented nor tested. Concurrent writing was added rather as a side effect of issue14099. If there is a benefit from getting rid of it, we can break it.

For preserving current behavior'w') should acquire the lock and it should be released in _ZipWriteFile.close().

I have added other comments on Rietveld. The patch needs to be updated to resolve conflicts with committed zipinfo-from-file5.patch.
msg261328 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-03-08 06:31
Acquiring a lock in open(mode="w") and releasing it in close() doesn’t seem like a particularly useful feature to me. Maybe it would be better (and equally compatible?) to just use the lock in the internal write() or writestr() implementations.
msg261332 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-03-08 08:14
Yes, using the lock in write() or writestr() is equally compatible.
msg262534 - (view) Author: Марк Коренберг (socketpair) * Date: 2016-03-27 20:29
I have the same problem, and make monkey-patch by myself BEFORE seeing this issue (!)

Example how I can do that is attached under name "".

It will be nice if you take my idea. And after that streaming of zip files would be possible.
msg262537 - (view) Author: Марк Коренберг (socketpair) * Date: 2016-03-27 21:27
Also, Python have problems with streaming READ of zip archive. I mean ability to read (in some form iterate over) archive when seeking is not available.

I mean iteration like one in TAR archives.
msg262543 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-03-28 01:07
Mark: I suggest to keep this discussion focussed on writing zip files, although I agree some enhancements to help reading without seeking could be reasonable.
msg262557 - (view) Author: Марк Коренберг (socketpair) * Date: 2016-03-28 05:38 tries to implement streaming in one more kind.

Also libarchive have experimental support of streaming write to zip archives in newest version.

So problem is actual.
msg262926 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-04-06 00:16
Sorry for the delay, this fell off my radar because emails from both the bug tracker and Rietveld tend to fall foul of my spam filters, so I have to go and check.

I have implemented Serhiy's suggestions, but there turns out to be a test (test_write_after_read) that calls writestr while a reading handle is open, and it now fails. This is absolutely expected according to the design we discussed, but if there's a test, I guess that means we need to keep that functionality working?

In principle, the only thing that's not possible is interleaving writes to multiple files within the zip - because we don't know where to start writing the second file. We should be able to have one writer and n readers going at once, but every time I start looking into that I get mired in complexity. Maybe (hopefully) there's some critical abstraction that hasn't occurred to me.
msg264062 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-04-23 16:10
Martin, Serhiy: Am I right that it would be unacceptable to change the test, and I therefore need to find a way to allow writestr while a reading-mode handle is open?
msg264070 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-04-23 20:59
test_write_after_read was added in issue14099. It doesn't test intended behavior, it tests existing behavior just in case to not change it unintentionally. It is desirable to preserve it, but if there is no simple way, may be we can change it.
msg264169 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-04-25 11:20
It wasn't as bad as I thought (hopefully that doesn't mean I've missed something). zipfile-open-w6.patch allows interleaved reads and writes so long as the underlying file object is seekable.

You still can't have multiple write handles open (it wouldn't know where to start the second file), or read & write handles on a non-seekable stream (I don't think a non-seekable read-write file ever makes sense, except perhaps for a pty, which is really two separate streams on one file descriptor).

Tests are passing again.
msg264205 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-04-26 02:29
I understand Python’s zipfile module does not allow reading unless seek() is supported (this was one of Марк’s complaints). So it is irrelevant whether we are writing.

I left a few comments, but it sounds like it is valid read and write at the same time.
msg264242 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-04-26 09:30
zipfile-open-w7 adds a test that Martin requested
msg264248 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-04-26 11:01
zipfile-open-w8 removes the concurrent read-write check for non-seekable files. As Martin points out, reading currently requires seeking, and a streaming read API would look very different from the current API.
msg264720 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-05-03 13:05
Any further review comments on this?
msg265232 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-05-10 10:12
Ping? Once this is landed, I intend to make a backport package of it so I can start using it before Python 3.6 comes out.
msg265330 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-05-11 17:14
I have added comments for tests and documentation. The implementation looks correct. But I prefer simpler solution on this stage. Here is something between zipfile-open-w5.patch and zipfile-open-w8.patch, close to zipfile-open-w5.patch with fixed issues.

* Writer doesn't use look and seeking.
* Writing while there are open read handlers is permitted.
* Reading while there is open write handler is forbidden.

This works in all cases when current code works. The ability to read while there is open write handler is separate new feature (and I don't know whether there is a need in it).
msg265386 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-05-12 09:57
Thanks Serhiy. I'm quite happy with that set of constraints. I had a look over your patch set, and just spotted one thing in writestr that I have overlooked all along.
msg265388 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-05-12 10:12
Thank you for your contribution Thomas. I'll push the patch with fixed writestr in short time unless Martin left comments.
msg265459 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-05-13 09:58
Yes this looks okay to me, so go ahead.

My only concern was other methods affecting the file position while in the middle of writing, but it looks like those methods maintain separate objects like self.filelist, so there is no conflict.
msg265461 - (view) Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev) (Python triager) Date: 2016-05-13 10:53
New changeset 175c3f1d0256 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default':
Issue #26039: can now be used to write data into a ZIP
msg265532 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-05-14 16:01
Thanks Serhiy! I am marking this as fixed.
msg265540 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-05-14 19:21
Let me know when you create a backport package Thomas. I'd like to help.
msg265541 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-05-14 20:59
There are yet few issues.

1. Currently RuntimeError is widely used in zipfile. But in most cases ValueError would be more appropriate since it programming error (for example ValueError is raised when try to read or write to closed file). See issue24693, but this is backward incompatible change. For new exceptions we are free to use any exception type without breaking backward compatibility. It looks to me, that ValueError is more appropriate is these cases than RuntimeError. What do you think about this Thomas? Here is a patch that changes exceptions types.

2. ZipInfo.is_dir() is not documented and lacks a docstring.

3. It would be better to make force_zip64 a keyword-only parameter. This would allow to add new positional parameters without breaking compatibility.
msg265544 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-05-14 21:25
1. For the cases like read/write handles conflicting, ValueError doesn't seem quite right to me - I take ValueError to mean that you have passed an invalid value to a function. RuntimeError feels like the closest fit for 'the current state does not allow this operation'. It is rather broad, though.

If I was writing it anew, I would use ValueError for something like an invalid mode parameter:'foo', mode='q') . That particular case was already in the code, though, so I think backwards compatibility should take precedence.

2 & 3. Agreed, I'll prepare a patch
msg265546 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-05-14 22:02
Patch attached for points 2 and 3
msg265559 - (view) Author: Martin Panter (martin.panter) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-05-14 23:29
The bonus patch looks okay, although I wonder if the directory slash (/) information should be in the RST rather than doc string. Usually the RST has all the details, and doc strings are just summaries.

Regarding exceptions, I can sympathise with both sides of the argument and don’t have a strong opinion (why does the exception type matter for programmer errors anyway?). But I think it might be better to be locally consistent within the zipfile module, and the module is already heavily documented with RuntimeError for similar programmer errors.
msg265580 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-05-15 05:25
Agreed that the docstring should be shorten version of the documentation and not vice versa. The directory slash information is implementation detail. I'm not sure it is needed in the documentation.
msg265592 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-05-15 08:05
Updated version of the patch with the detail moved to rst.
msg265603 - (view) Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev) (Python triager) Date: 2016-05-15 09:27
New changeset 29b470b8ab77 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default':
Issue #26039: Document ZipInfo.is_dir() and make force_zip64 keyword-only.
msg265605 - (view) Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * (Python committer) Date: 2016-05-15 09:28
LGTM. Thank you Thomas.
msg265635 - (view) Author: Thomas Kluyver (takluyver) * Date: 2016-05-15 17:27
The backported package now exists on PyPI as zipfile36. It's passing the tests on 3.4 - I haven't tested further back. I'm trying out Gitlab for hosting it:
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:58:25adminsetgithub: 70227
2016-05-15 17:27:05takluyversetmessages: + msg265635
2016-05-15 09:28:40serhiy.storchakasetstatus: open -> closed
resolution: fixed
messages: + msg265605

stage: patch review -> resolved
2016-05-15 09:27:48python-devsetmessages: + msg265603
2016-05-15 08:05:23takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-flex-bonus2.patch

messages: + msg265592
2016-05-15 05:25:10serhiy.storchakasetmessages: + msg265580
2016-05-14 23:29:05martin.pantersetmessages: + msg265559
2016-05-14 22:02:22takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-flex-bonus.patch

messages: + msg265546
2016-05-14 21:25:05takluyversetmessages: + msg265544
2016-05-14 20:59:48serhiy.storchakasetstatus: closed -> open
files: + zipfile-open-w-exceptions.patch
messages: + msg265541

resolution: fixed -> (no value)
stage: resolved -> patch review
2016-05-14 19:21:33serhiy.storchakasetmessages: + msg265540
stage: commit review -> resolved
2016-05-14 16:01:35takluyversetstatus: open -> closed
resolution: fixed
messages: + msg265532
2016-05-13 10:53:31python-devsetmessages: + msg265461
2016-05-13 09:58:04martin.pantersetmessages: + msg265459
2016-05-12 10:12:43serhiy.storchakasetmessages: + msg265388
stage: patch review -> commit review
2016-05-12 09:57:10takluyversetmessages: + msg265386
2016-05-11 17:14:05serhiy.storchakasetfiles: + zipfile-open-w9.patch

messages: + msg265330
2016-05-10 10:12:26takluyversetmessages: + msg265232
2016-05-03 19:47:23socketpairsetnosy: - socketpair
2016-05-03 13:05:56takluyversetmessages: + msg264720
2016-04-26 11:01:08takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-open-w8.patch

messages: + msg264248
2016-04-26 09:30:16takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-open-w7.patch

messages: + msg264242
2016-04-26 02:29:45martin.pantersetmessages: + msg264205
2016-04-25 11:20:31takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-open-w6.patch

messages: + msg264169
2016-04-23 20:59:39serhiy.storchakasetmessages: + msg264070
2016-04-23 16:10:08takluyversetmessages: + msg264062
2016-04-06 00:16:53takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-open-w5.patch

messages: + msg262926
2016-03-28 05:38:10socketpairsetmessages: + msg262557
2016-03-28 01:07:32martin.pantersetmessages: + msg262543
title: More flexibility in zipfile interface -> More flexibility in zipfile write interface
2016-03-27 21:27:04socketpairsetmessages: + msg262537
2016-03-27 20:29:36socketpairsetfiles: +
nosy: + socketpair
messages: + msg262534

2016-03-08 08:14:17serhiy.storchakasetmessages: + msg261332
2016-03-08 06:31:23martin.pantersetmessages: + msg261328
2016-03-03 15:55:54serhiy.storchakasetmessages: + msg261168
2016-03-03 12:04:24takluyversetmessages: + msg261162
2016-02-25 12:12:01martin.pantersetmessages: + msg260852
2016-02-24 14:57:00takluyversetmessages: + msg260810
2016-02-24 14:50:57takluyversetmessages: + msg260808
2016-02-23 21:52:13martin.pantersetmessages: + msg260746
2016-02-23 14:16:32Dhiraj_Mishrasetnosy: + Dhiraj_Mishra
messages: + msg260734
2016-02-23 14:01:05takluyversetmessages: + msg260733
2016-02-15 10:37:03takluyversetmessages: + msg260305
2016-02-08 09:55:29takluyversetmessages: + msg259833
2016-02-07 22:14:13serhiy.storchakasetmessages: + msg259806
2016-02-07 22:05:33python-devsetnosy: + python-dev
messages: + msg259805
2016-02-04 09:41:16takluyversetmessages: + msg259553
2016-01-30 15:49:42takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-open-w4.patch

messages: + msg259258
2016-01-30 12:18:39takluyversetfiles: + zipinfo-from-file5.patch

messages: + msg259255
2016-01-29 14:10:03takluyversetfiles: + zipinfo-from-file4.patch

messages: + msg259209
2016-01-29 12:14:20takluyversetfiles: + zipinfo-from-file3.patch
2016-01-29 12:08:51takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-open-w3.patch

messages: + msg259206
2016-01-29 01:48:07martin.pantersetnosy: + martin.panter

messages: + msg259184
stage: test needed -> patch review
2016-01-27 14:41:39takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-open-w2.patch

messages: + msg259022
2016-01-27 00:02:36takluyversetfiles: + zipinfo-from-file2.patch
2016-01-26 14:19:06takluyversetmessages: + msg258959
2016-01-26 14:17:38serhiy.storchakasetassignee: serhiy.storchaka
messages: + msg258958
stage: test needed
2016-01-26 11:19:11takluyversetmessages: + msg258949
2016-01-17 10:48:45takluyversetfiles: + zipinfo-from-file.patch

messages: + msg258459
2016-01-15 17:54:06takluyversetfiles: + zipfile-open-w.patch

messages: + msg258313
2016-01-07 16:07:17serhiy.storchakasetnosy: + serhiy.storchaka
messages: + msg257697
2016-01-07 15:53:31mbussonnsetnosy: + mbussonn
messages: + msg257696
2016-01-07 15:10:51takluyvercreate