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

Matt Joiner anacrolix at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 04:31:34 CET 2012

On Mar 14, 2012 5:27 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:

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.

Rather than indicating apathy on the party of third party developers, this might be a sign that core Python is unapproachable or not worth the effort.

For instance I have several one line patches languishing, I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have significantly larger patches ignored, but it happens. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120314/8ce6610b/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list