Skip to content

Conversation

jkloth
Copy link
Contributor

@jkloth jkloth commented Jun 6, 2017

@larryhastings
Copy link
Contributor

I'm sorry you haven't gotten feedback on this PR previously; I've never seen it before today, and as the 3.5 release manager I should have seen it many times before when searching for outstanding PRs against 3.5. Maybe it was mistagged before somehow?

I have some feedback about the code, but I'll hold off on that for now. The main question I have is: why does this help? It looks like the functions we're farming out to the child processes are extremely simple and quick--all it's doing is squaring an integer. The existing code already permits a timeout of ten seconds. If ten seconds isn't enough, why would five minutes be an improvement? Is the point that running the tests on a heavily loaded machine will give it a greater chance of success? Because maybe five minutes wouldn't be long enough either.

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

I fixed https://bugs.python.org/issue30339 differently: I just increased the timeouts from 10 seconds to 1 minute. I don't think that this change is still needed. If I'm wrong, just reopen your PR ;-)

@vstinner vstinner closed this Jun 27, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants