[Python-Dev] External Package Maintenance (original) (raw)
Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Mon Jun 12 22:45:36 CEST 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] External Package Maintenance
- Next message: [Python-Dev] External Package Maintenance
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
A01:01 PM 6/12/2006 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I think I pretty much did already -- going forward, I'd like to see that contributing something to the stdlib means that from then on maintenance is done using the same policies and guidelines as the rest of the stdlib (which are pretty conservative as far as new features go), and not subject to the original contributor's veto or prior permission. Rolling back changes without discussion is out of the question.
I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here. I didn't ask for veto or prior permission. I just want to keep the external release in sync.
I also didn't roll anything back, at least not intentionally. I was trying to merge the Python changes into the external release, and vice versa. Two-way syncing is difficult and error-prone, especially when you're thinking you only need to do a one-way sync! So if I managed to roll something back unintentionally in the process last night, I would hope someone would let me know.
That was my sole complaint: I requested a particular change process to ensure that syncing would be one-way, from wsgiref to Python. If it has to be the other way, from Python to wsgiref, so be it. However, my impression from PEP 360 was that the way I was asking for was the "One Obvious Way" of doing it.
This is not now, nor was it ever a control issue; I'd appreciate it if you'd stop implying that control has anything to do with it. At most, it's a widespread ignorance and/or misunderstanding as to the optimum way of handling stdlib packages with external distribution.
It sounds like Barry has a potentially workable way of managing it that might reasonably be blessed as the One Obvious Way, and I'm certainly willing to try it. I'd still rather have a Packages/ directory, but beggars can't be choosers. However, if this is to be the One Obvious Way, it should be documented in a PEP as part of the "how packages get in the stdlib and how they're maintained".
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] External Package Maintenance
- Next message: [Python-Dev] External Package Maintenance
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]