On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, xoviat <xov...@gmail.com> wrote: > This was a comment by @zooba (Steve Dower): > > > (FWIW, I think it makes *much* more sense for setuptools to fix this by > simply forking all of distutils and never looking back. But since we don't > live in that world yet, it went into distutils.) > > And here is my response: > > > Since you mention it, I agree with that proposal. But currently we have > core developers contributing to distutils and @jaraco contributing to > setuptools. @jaraco is quite competent, but I doubt that he would be able > to maintain an independent fork of distutils by himself. > > > In short, I think your proposal is a good one, but how can we allocate > manpower? > > (issue31595 on bugs.python.org) > > So what do others think of this? My sense of things is that people are > open to the idea, but there isn't a plan to make it happen. >
My $2c: I'd only be a very occasional contributor, but it makes a lot of sense from the point of view of packaging/distributing changes to distutils. Also setuptools is a lot better maintained than distutils, and using the bug tracker is a much better experience. So many reasons to do it, and I'd certainly be more likely to report bugs and/or fix them. Ralf
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
