[Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives (original) (raw)

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Tue Mar 13 20:49:26 CET 2012

On 3/13/2012 12:40 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Terry Reedy<tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:

I would rather we figure out how to encourage authors of advancing packages to contribute better implementations of existing features and well-tested new features back to the stdlib module. I would not.

I think you misunderstood me and are talking about something other than what I meant. There are about 3250 open issues (this slowly but steadily grows). Of them, 1450 are behavior (bug) issues. We need more people, especially people with specialized expertise, writing and reviewing patches. As you said in response to Senthil

Improving existing stdlib modules is always welcome

Exactly. So I would like to figure out how to encourage more such improvements.

There are many excellent packages out there that should not be made into stdlib packages simply because their authors are not done adding new features.

Or because the package is outside the reasonable scope of the stdlib, or requires a different type of expertise than most core development, or for other reasons.

Authors of separately maintained packages are, from our viewpoint, as eligible to help with tracker issues as anyone else, even while they continue work on their external package. Some of them are more likely than most contributors to have the knowledge needed for some particular issues.

-- Terry Jan Reedy

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list