[I don't know who added my Google address to the CC list. Please don't do that again.]
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Jesus Cea wrote: > >> I'm a bit worried about you restoring bsddb and be pulled-off shortly >> again if I can't resolve any remaining issues in minutes :). But I would >> take the risk. > > Don't worry about that. Guido's decision will be binding for 3.0. I am still in favor of removing bsddb from Python 3.0. It depends on a 3rd party library of enormous complexity whose stability cannot always be taken for granted. Arguments about code ownership, release cycles, bugbot stability and more all point towards keeping it separate. I consider it no different in nature than 3rd party UI packages (e.g. wxPython or PyQt) or relational database bindings (e.g. the MySQL or PostgreSQL bindings): very useful to a certain class of users, but outside the scope of the core distribution. Python 3.0 is a perfect opportunity to say goodbye to bsddb as a standard library component. For apps that depend on it, it is just a download away -- deprecating in 3.0 and removal in 3.1 would actually send the *wrong* message, since it is very much alive! I am grateful for Jesus to have taken over maintenance, and hope that the package blossoms in its newfound freedom. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
