Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Unfortunately we couldn't find an account corresponding to your GitHub username on bugs.python.org (b.p.o) to verify you have signed the CLA. This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at your contribution. Please follow these steps to help rectify the issue:

1. If you don't have an account on b.p.o, please create one
2. Make sure your GitHub username is listed in "Your Details" at b.p.o
3. If you have not already done so, please sign the PSF contributor agreement. The "bugs.python.org username " requested by the form is the "Login name" field under "Your Details".
4. If you just signed the CLA, please wait at least one US business day and then check "Your Details" on bugs.python.org to see if your account has been marked as having signed the CLA (the delay is due to a person having to manually check your signed CLA)
5. Reply here saying you have completed the above steps

Thanks again to your contribution and we look forward to looking at it!

@MojoVampire, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @birkenfeld, @brianquinlan and @ezio-melotti to be potential reviewers.

I've already submitted a contributor agreement pre-GitHub migration. I just updated my b.p.o. user profile (josh.r) to link to my GitHub account name. Is that sufficient, or do I need to submit a new contributor agreement based on my GitHub e-mail address?

Hmm... Is the failure of continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr something real? Clicking Details just tells me it can't find a python/cpython repository at all...

You can also take a look at my implementation that I uploaded to https://github.com/pkch/executors. It does something more like what I described in the issue tracker, the main benefit being that it's not blocking.

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@MojoVampire could you share your plans about this PR? Do you plan to drive it forward?

I have made the requested changes; please review again.

I did not add a Misc/NEWS entry since the file no longer exists (it's autogenerated from commit messages now, correct?).

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@methane: please review the changes made to this pull request.

I did not add a Misc/NEWS entry since the file no longer exists (it's autogenerated from commit messages now, correct?).

NEWS entries can be generated using blurb or blurb-it

Please see : https://devguide.python.org/committing/?highlight=news#what-s-new-and-news-entries

I have made the requested changes; please review again.

Actually made the Misc/NEWS entry properly. Sorry for confusion; I haven't made a PR since the news Misc/NEWS regime began and didn't know about the blurb tool. Thanks for the assist @tirkarthi

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@methane: please review the changes made to this pull request.

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@MojoVampire I think you need to comment your PR with I have made the requested changes; please review again for it to pass

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.

@MojoVampire, are you going to follow up this PR?

@erlend-aasland: I'd like to apply this, but I never got any idea of what would constitute an acceptable final result. Executor.map is, frankly, useless for many of its intended purposes right now; in an effort to improve performance on huge inputs, you end up prefetching the entire input and pre-scheduling all the tasks before you can process any of them.

cc. @kumaraditya303, is this something you'd be interested in reviewing?

is this something you'd be interested in reviewing?

I'll take a look soon, but it seems there are two PRs for the same thing and this one has conflicts so maybe we should continue on #18566

Closing this in favor of #18566, thanks for the PR!