On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016, at 07:15 AM, Sylvain Corlay wrote: > > I find this worrying that the main arguments to not include a patch would > be that > > - this part of the standard library is not very maintained (things don't > get merged) > - earlier versions of won't have it > > > Would it make sense to add it to both distutils and setuptools? The > standard library continues to evolve, projects that require Python 3.6 > wouldn't need to use setuptools, but we could start using it sooner. > I don't have a problem with this, at least it avoids the main issues I pointed out. Although I also don't see much benefit of adding the code to distutils as well, given that the non-setuptools use is effectively deprecated (by not adding support for new PEPs in distutils for example) and less and less relevant every year. > There's obviously some cost in code duplication; I haven't looked at the > code in question, so I don't know how bad this is. > This patch is pretty short and understandable, so not bad. > I've run into this argument before when trying to change things in > non-packaging-related parts of the stdlib, and I agree with Sylvain that > it's fundamentally problematic. If we're trying to improve the stdlib, > we're obviously taking a long view, but that's how we ensure the stdlib is > still useful in a few years time. This goes for packaging tools as much as > anything else. > This I don't agree with - packaging is fundamentally different for the reasons Donald gave. Ralf > I already have projects where I'm happy to require Python >=3.4, so being > able to depend on Python 3.6 is not such a distant prospect. > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
