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

Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Tue Mar 13 22:21:03 CET 2012

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:16:40 -0700 Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: > 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.

This is a good idea. I was chatting w. Senthil this morning about adding improvements to urllib/request.py based upon ideas from urllib3, requests, httplib2 (?), and we came to the conclusion that it might be a good idea to let those packages' authors review the proposed stdlib improvements.

We don't have any provisions against reviewal by third-party developers already. I think the main problem (for us, of course) is that these people generally aren't interested enough to really dive in stdlib patches and proposals.

For example, for the ssl module, I have sometimes tried to involve authors of third-party packages such as pyOpenSSL (or, IIRC, M2Crypto), but I got very little or no reviewing.

Regards

Antoine.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list