Message 62775 - Python tracker

➜

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.

Author	pitrou
Recipients	belopolsky, gvanrossum, maltehelmert, pitrou
Date	2008-02-23.17:13:59
SpamBayes Score	0.041543968
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1203786839.82.0.0811096968965.issue1040026@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
Well first I can't reproduce the bug on my machine :) However the two patches do not produce any regression either. I have some questions: 1. isn't 0.1 for WAIT_TIME a bit too low? 1.0 would probably be less fragile IMHO 2. why do you fork() in test_times, rather than simply compute the increase in the first and second return values of os.times()?

Well first I can't reproduce the bug on my machine :)
However the two patches do not produce any regression either.
I have some questions:
1. isn't 0.1 for WAIT_TIME a bit too low? 1.0 would probably be less
fragile IMHO
2. why do you fork() in test_times, rather than simply compute the
increase in the first and second return values of os.times()?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2008-02-23 17:14:00	pitrou	set	spambayes_score: 0.041544 -> 0.041543968 recipients: + pitrou, gvanrossum, belopolsky, maltehelmert
2008-02-23 17:13:59	pitrou	set	spambayes_score: 0.041544 -> 0.041544 messageid: <1203786839.82.0.0811096968965.issue1040026@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2008-02-23 17:13:59	pitrou	link	issue1040026 messages
2008-02-23 17:13:59	pitrou	create