(original) (raw)

On 14 August 2013 11:55, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> On 14 August 2013 11:08, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:

>> > We take adding a module to the stdlib very seriously for all of these

>> > reasons and yet people seem to forget that the exact same reasons apply

>> > to

>> > modules already in the stdlib, whether they would be added today or not

>> > (and

>> > in this instance I would argue not). There is a balance to keeping the

>> > load

>> > of work for core devs at a level that is tenable to the level of quality

>> > we

>> > expect from ourselves which means making sure we don't let cruft build

>> > up in

>> > the stdlib and overwhelm us.

>>

>> I've already suggested a solution to that at the language summit [1]:

>> we create a "Legacy Modules" section in the docs index and dump all

>> the modules that are in the "These are only in the standard library

>> because they were added before PyPI existed, aren't really actively

>> maintained, but we can't remove them due to backwards compatibility

>> concerns" category there.

>>

>> Clear indication of their status for authors, educators, future users

>> and us, with no risk of breaking currently working code.

>

>

> I view a deprecation as the same thing. If we leave the module in until

> Python 4 then I can live with that, but simply moving documentation around

> is not enough to communicate to those who didn't read the release notes to

> know modules they rely on are now essentially orphaned.

No, a deprecation isn't enough, because it doesn't help authors and
educators to know "this is legacy, you can skip it". We need both.