[Python-Dev] 3.x as the official release (original) (raw)

Jesse Noller jnoller at gmail.com
Wed Sep 15 19:09:58 CEST 2010

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:35, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: ...snip...

The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and others, but given a lack of a clear path forward (bugs, peps, etc), I don't think it's fair to use it as a measurement of overall quality.

The whole WSGI situation is not going to get cleared up (from my understanding) until someone flat-out declares a winner in the whole str/bytes argument that keeps coming up. I think it might be time to have a PEP or two on this and use our new PEP dictator procedure to settle this so it stops dragging on (unless it has been miraculously settled and I am just unaware of it).

Yup, and I spoke with some people with horses in that race at Djangocon. The important thing is that the PEP(s) and suggestion come from the people with the most experience in that domain. Yes. They have to be people who are not only stakeholders but people who actively use and develop large applications using WSGI. That's why I said we (in the "committer" sense) need a clear path of things we need to change or fix - without it we're just stabbing in the dark. So, who do we get to write the PEP(s)? Should we ask the web-sig to choose a person or two and then once we have the PEPs we designate PEP dictators? Either way we should probably set a deadline to get the PEPs in else the SIG might argue too long where to go look at paint samples.

At Djangocon, I was told this is being discussed amongst people on web-sig, and I encouraged a few people to get involved. I don't think this is something we can set a deadline for (and I don't know that it's our place), especially given a lack of people to actually write the code in some cases. In at least one case, I've encouraged them to contact the PSF with a proposal in case funding is needed (such as your own, or Jean-Paul's work).

Fundamentally; I would gladly hold up 3.2 (just my opinion) for the needed fixes to the standard lib I've heard discussed (once we have bugs and/or patches) but that requires the decisions to be made, and I don't think the people here are the ones to make the decisions - so we can only state the release date of 3.2 and the subsequent releases and let the people who know infinitely more about the nuances then us decide on it.

jesse

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list