Author dmalcolm
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, loewis, mark.dickinson, neologix, pitrou, skorgu, skrah, terry.reedy, tim.peters, v+python, vstinner, zbysz
Date 2012-01-29.00:06:29
SpamBayes Score 1.08247e-14
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1327795553.2219.128.camel@surprise>
In-reply-to <>
On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 23:56 +0000, Terry J. Reedy wrote:
> Terry J. Reedy <> added the comment:
> > I think you should check with randomization enabled, if only to see the
> > nature of the failures and if they are expected.
> Including the list of when-enabled expected failures in the release 
> notes would help those who compile and test.

OK, though note that because it's random, I'll have to run it a few
times, and we'll see what shakes out.

Am running with:
$  make test TESTPYTHONOPTS=-R
leading to:
   ./python -E -bb -R ./Lib/test/ -l 

BTW, I see:
  Testing with flags: sys.flags(debug=0, division_warning=0, inspect=0,
interactive=0, optimize=0, dont_write_bytecode=0, no_user_site=0,
no_site=0, ignore_environment=1, verbose=0, bytes_warning=2)

which doesn't list the new flag.  Should I add it to sys.flags?  (or
does anyone ever do tuple-unpacking of that PyStructSequence and thus
rely on the number of elements?)
Date User Action Args
2012-01-29 00:06:30dmalcolmsetrecipients: + dmalcolm, lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, loewis, 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, gz, neologix, Arach, Mark.Shannon, eric.snow, Zhiping.Deng, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, PaulMcMillan, fx5, skorgu
2012-01-29 00:06:29dmalcolmlinkissue13703 messages
2012-01-29 00:06:29dmalcolmcreate