Author gvanrossum
Recipients Arach, Arfrever, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, Mark.Shannon, PaulMcMillan, Zhiping.Deng, alex, barry, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, eric.araujo, eric.snow, fx5, georg.brandl, grahamd, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, gz, jcea, lemburg, mark.dickinson, neologix, pitrou, skrah, terry.reedy, tim.peters, v+python, vstinner, zbysz
Date 2012-01-18.21:10:49
SpamBayes Score 1.55645e-07
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <1326920621.3395.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Antoine Pitrou <>wrote:

> Antoine Pitrou <> added the comment:
> > I like this, esp. if for old releases the collision counting is on by
> > default and the hash seeding is off by default, while in 3.3 both should
> be
> > on by default. Different env vars or flags should be used to
> enable/disable
> > them.
> I would hope 3.3 only gets randomized hashing. Collision counting is a
> hack to make bugfix releases 99.999%-compatible instead of 99.9% ;)

Really? I'd expect the difference to be more than 2 nines. The randomized
hashing has two problems: (a) change in dict order; (b) hash varies between
processes. I cannot imagine counterexamples to the collision counting that
weren't constructed specifically as counterexamples.
Date User Action Args
2012-01-18 21:10:50gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, lemburg, tim.peters, barry, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, gregory.p.smith, jcea, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, grahamd, Arfrever, v+python, alex, zbysz, skrah, dmalcolm, gz, neologix, Arach, Mark.Shannon, eric.snow, Zhiping.Deng, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, PaulMcMillan, fx5
2012-01-18 21:10:50gvanrossumlinkissue13703 messages
2012-01-18 21:10:49gvanrossumcreate