Author rnk
Recipients Rhamphoryncus, collinwinter, gregory.p.smith, jyasskin, rnk
Date 2010-07-12.15:11:28
SpamBayes Score 0.0263547
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
I completely agree, but the cat is out of the bag on this one.  I don't see how we could get rid of fork until Py4K, and even then I'm sure there will be people who don't want to see it go, and I'd rather not spend my time arguing this point.

The only application of fork that doesn't use exec that I've heard of is pre-forked Python servers.  But those don't seem like they would be very useful, since with refcounting the copy-on-write behavior doesn't get you very many wins.

The problem that this bandaid solves for me is that already tests thread+fork behaviors, and can fail non-deterministically.

This problem was exacerbated while I was working on making the compilation thread.

I don't think we can un-support fork and threads in the near future either, because uses fork, and libraries can use fork behind the user's back.
Date User Action Args
2010-07-12 15:11:30rnksetrecipients: + rnk, collinwinter, gregory.p.smith, Rhamphoryncus, jyasskin
2010-07-12 15:11:30rnksetmessageid: <>
2010-07-12 15:11:29rnklinkissue6643 messages
2010-07-12 15:11:28rnkcreate