[Python-Dev] PEP 3144 review, and the inclusion process (original) (raw)

Peter Moody peter at hda3.com
Mon Sep 28 19:22:05 CEST 2009


[cc += david moss]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:

Peter Moody <peter hda3.com> writes:

I've never said otherwise. In fact, from an email last night, "If what the community requires is the library you've described, then ipaddr is not that library." The changes you require make ipaddr significantly less useful to me. I'm not prepared to make those changes in an attempt seek acceptance to the stdlib, especially if the stdlib is in such flux that I'll get to do this again in 18 months. Well, then I'm not sure why we have a PEP at all. If you don't want any significant changes and if you consider it to be your library, ipaddr can remain a third-party package that interested people can easily install (no pun ;-)) since AFAIK it's pure Python. It will also make maintenance easier for you, while freeing us (core developers) from having to bother about it in our daily development tasks. At least that's what I would advocate right now - not sure about what others think. I think Peter is pretty frustrated by the many attacks on "his" library. There are probably a number of different things going on simultaneous: Peter has been driven into the defense by attacks both reasonable and unreasonable, there have been misunderstandings all around, teasing out use cases (by both parties) has been a problem. Things might have gone differently if the PEP had started out with multiple authors. Maybe it's not too late to add one or more other interested parties to the PEP with the purpose of making the PEP more clearly the result of a consensus-gathering process.  Any volunteers?

David called me a little over a week ago and expressed an interest in doing exactly this cross continent/ocean coordination has been a little difficult thus far and I'm not certain what his feelings on this are now.

At the same time I don't think a complete reset of the proposed API is necessary.  I am rather more thinking of judicious API tweaks in order to cover some new use cases, without requiring a complete rewrite or destroying the usability of the proposal for Peter's original use cases. (In general I am pretty happy with the ipaddr code and API; it looks like what I would have done, but then I am blissfully unaware of some of the issues brought up in this thread.)

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)


Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-dev%40hda3.com



More information about the Python-Dev mailing list