On 25/08/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/25/07, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > FYI, I'm removing the email package from the py3k branch for now. > > > If/when Barry has a working version we'll add it back. Given that it's > > > so close to the release I'd rather release without the email package > > > than with a broken one. If Barry finishes it after the a1 release, > > > people who need it can always download his version directly. > > > > Alternately, we could move toward separate libraries for such > > components; this allows separate packages to have separate > > maintenance cycles, and makes it easier for applications to pick up > > bug fixes. > > Are you suggesting of just leaving email out of the core then and just > have people download it as necessary? Or just having it developed > externally and thus have its own release schedule, but then pull in > the latest stable release when we do a new Python release?
FWIW, I'm very much against moving email out of the core. This has been discussed a number of times before, and as far as I am aware, no conclusion reached. However, the "batteries included" approach of Python is a huge benefit for me. Every time I have to endure writing Perl, I find some module that I don't have available as standard. I can download it, sure, but I can't *rely* on it. No matter how good eggs and/or PyPI get, please let's keep the standard library with the "batteries included" philosophy. (Apologies if removing email permanently was never the intention - you just touched a nerve there!) Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
