Adjust logging lock handling for Python 3.13 #15
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
python/cpython#109462 removed `logging._acquireLock`. Fortunately, python/cpython#3385 simplified lock creation so that `with logging._lock:` is sufficient; that PR made it into Python 3.7, which is already pastescript's minimum Python requirement.
|
Thanks for this, forgot to come back to it in the end of year chaos. Will merge it after making some fixes to the GitHub workflows. |
3 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
python/cpython#109462 removed
logging._acquireLock. Fortunately, python/cpython#3385 simplified lock creation so thatwith logging._lock:is sufficient; that PR made it into Python 3.7, which is already pastescript's minimum Python requirement.(I know about pastescript being on life support; but it still seems to be used by some of the OpenStack packages in Debian, so from a Debian point of view I guess we're still stuck with it for now.)