forked from conda-forge/python-feedstock
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
Python 3.15.0b3 #232
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
skupr-anaconda
wants to merge
6
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
py315b3
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+513
−240
Draft
Python 3.15.0b3 #232
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e9d507f
Python 3.15.0b3
skupr-anaconda 078a366
Remove redundant comment
skupr-anaconda 6506b4a
Remove obsolete stuff
skupr-anaconda 4949dba
Add ANACONDA_ROCKET_ENABLE_PY315
skupr-anaconda 633a0fe
Fix 0014 and 0022 patch regressions for Python 3.15.0b3
skupr-anaconda 860da04
Add force_use_keys with gil_type for libpython-static
skupr-anaconda File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks wrong, btw. Our patch shouldn't be introducing new things -- although I got the same thing when I tried to regenerate the patches.
Maybe it works because "Hunk already applied" or something we'd need to look closely at the build output.
The first bit
rem ...seems OK as that is in the original 0002-*.patch. But that is the only change in the original patch!The second bit looks like
gitdone goofed:So the
if /I ...bits were in the original bump from 3.14.6 to 3.15.0b3. So they should not also be in our patch.My suspicion is that
gitsees theif /Ilines as having changed with the 3 lines of context and has included them.However, it looks as though it has also deleted the
if "%do_pga%" ...lines. Which would be bad... Did it echo "Cannot cross-compile with PGO" ??Given that it built... 🤷
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for catching that.
0002 and 0004 still each have a single intentional change vs our master branch; the Clean/CleanAll and stdlib_zip lines are just upstream context from the 3.14→3.15 move.
0014 and 0022 were the real regressions — fixed in 633a0fe.