Dormant core dev here. Not contributing at all due to severe lack of time in the past year and a half, not likely to have more time in the near future. Also no longer working with Python at all except as a hobby :(
I could pull off a review once a month if it would actually help! On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > What I'm picking up from this is (as a gross oversimplification): > > * Victor _wants_ code reviews > * Raymond thinks we _need_ code reviews > > So the common theme here regardless of whether you agree with Raymond or > Victor's approach to development is that we are not getting enough code > reviews to go around. To me that's what the systemic issue is that this > email is bringing up. > > Now I think most of us don't think the solution to the lack of reviews is to > lower our standard of what it takes to become a core developer (this doesn't > mean we shouldn't do a better job of identifying potential candidates, just > that we shouldn't give people commit privileges after a single patch like > some projects do). To me that means we need to address why out of 79 core > developers only 39 have a single commit over the past year, 30/79 have more > than 12 commits over that same time scale, 15/79 people have more than 52 > commits, and 2/79 people have over 365 commits > (https://github.com/python/cpython/graphs/contributors?from=2016-01-22&to=2017-01-21&type=c > for the stats). > > Some of you have said you're waiting for the GitHub migration before you > start contributing again, which I can understand (I'm going to be sending an > email with an update on that after this email to python-dev & > core-workflow). But for those that have not told me that I don't know what > it will take to get you involved again. For instance, not to pick on Andrew > but he hasn't committed anything but he obviously still cares about the > project. So what would it take to get Andrew to help review patches again so > that the next time something involving random comes through he feels like > taking a quick look? > > As I have said before, the reason I took on the GitHub migration is for us > core developers. I want our workflow to be as easy as possible so that we > can be as productive as possible. But the unspoken goal I have long-term is > to get to the point that even dormant core devs want to contribute again, > and to the point that everyone reviews a patch/month and more people > reviewing a patch/week (although I'll take a patch/year to start). I want to > get to the point that every person with commit privileges takes 30 minutes a > month to help with reviews and that the majority of folks take 30 minutes a > week to review (and please don't think this as a hard rule and if you don't > the privileges go away, view this as an aspirational goal). Even if people > who don't have time to review the kind of patches Victor is producing which > triggered this thread, reviewing documentation patches can be done without > deep knowledge of things and without taking much time. That way people who > have time to review the bigger, more difficult patches can actually spend > their time on those reviews and not worrying about patches fixing a spelling > mistake or adding a new test to raise test coverage. > > All of this is so that I hope one day we get to the point where all patches > require a review no matter who proposed the code change. Now I think we're > quite a ways of from being there, but that's my moonshot goal for our > workflow: that we have enough quality reviews coming in that we feel that > even patches from fellow core developers is worth requiring the extra code > check and disbursement of knowledge without feeling like a terrible drag on > productivity. > > Once the GitHub migration has occurred I'm planning to tackle our Misc/NEWS > problem and then automate Misc/ACKS. After that, though, I hope we can take > the time to have a hard look at what in our workflow prevents people from > making even occasional code reviews so that everyone wants to help out again > (and if any of this interests you then please subscribe to core-workflow). > > > On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 at 02:46 Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Raymond Hettinger used a regression that I introduced in the builtin >> sorted() function (in Python 3.6.0) to give me his feedback on my >> FASTCALL work, but also on Argument Clinic. >> >> Context: http://bugs.python.org/issue29327#msg285848 >> >> Since the reported issues is wider than just FASTCALL, including how I >> contribute to CPython, I decided to discuss the topic with a wider >> audience. I continue the discussion on python-committers to get the >> opinion of the other core developers. >> >> Sorry for my very long answer! I tried to answer to each issues >> reported by Raymond. >> >> Inaccurate summary: I'm a strong supporter of "it's better to ask >> forgiveness than permission", whereas Raymond considers that I >> introduced too many regressions with my workflow. >> >> >> Raymond Hettinger added the comment: >> > A few random thoughts that may or may not be helpful: >> > >> > * We now have two seasoned developers and one new core developer that >> > collectively are creating many non-trivial patches to core parts of Python >> > at an unprecedented rate of change. The patches are coming in much faster >> > than they can reasonably be reviewed and carefully considered, especially >> > by >> > devs such as myself who have very limited time available. IMO, taken as >> > whole, these changes are destabilizing the language. Python is so >> > successful and widely adopted that we can't afford a "shit happens" >> > attitude. Perhaps that works in corners of the language, infrequently used >> > modules, but it makes less sense when touching the critical paths that have >> > had slow and careful evolution over 26 years. >> > >> > * Besides the volume of patches, one other reason that reviews are hard >> > to come by is that they apply new APIs that I don't fully understand yet. >> > There are perhaps two people on the planet who could currently give >> > thoughtful, correct, and critical evaluation of all those patches. >> > Everyone >> > else is just watching them all fly by and hoping that something good is >> > happening. >> >> Since one or maybe even two years, I noticed that many of my issues >> were blocked by the lack of reviews. As you wrote, only few developer >> have the knowledge and background to be able to provide a good review >> (not only "tests pass, so LGTM") on my changes modifying the Python >> core. >> >> I also wanted to discuss this topic, but I didn't really know what to >> propose. Let's take this opportunity to explain how I contribute to >> CPython, especially how I decide to wait for a review or not. >> >> For each patch that I write, I estimate the risk of regression. You >> may know that any regression is something unexpected, so such >> estimation is tricky. Here is my heuristic: >> >> (*) if the patch is trivial (short, non controversal), I push it >> immediatly. >> >> >> (*) If I'm less confident, I open an issue and attach the patch. I >> wait at least one day before pushing. >> >> It's strange, but the process of opening an issue and attaching the >> patch usually helps to review the code myself (find bugs, or more >> generally enhance the patch). Maybe because it forces me to review the >> change one more time? >> >> If the change is not part of a larger patch serie, so doesn't block me >> to move further, I try to keep the issue open around one week. >> >> The truth is that too few of my patches get a review :-/ Maybe I >> should wait longer, but then it becomes harder for me to handle many >> patches. >> >> Maybe it's a tooling issues. Recently, I started to use local branches >> in a Git repository. It helps a lot of work on parallel on large >> changes. Before, I only worked in a single directory (default/, the >> default Mercurial branch) and applied/reverted patches everytime. It's >> painful, especially when I have to use multiple computers, download >> again publshed patches, etc. Maybe it will run smoother once CPython >> will move to Git and GitHub. >> >> By the way, it's painful to squash a long patch serie into a giant >> patch, much harder to review, where changes don't make sense at all at >> the first look. Again, a better reviewing tool supporting patch series >> (GitHub) will help here too. >> >> Not supporting patch series in our reviewing tool also explains why I >> prefer to push than having to wait for a review. Rebasing manually >> long patch series stored as giant .patch files is complicated. >> >> >> (*) If the change changes an API or changes a core component, I wait >> for at least one review from a core reviewer. Sometimes, I even send >> an email to python-dev. Again, sometimes I don't get any feedback on >> the patch nor the email after two weeks :-/ At least, I tried :-) >> Usually, I get feedback in less than one week, or no feedback at all. >> I understand that nobody understands my change or nobody cares :-) >> >> I totally understand that most core developers have a little amount of >> time available to contribute to Python. I'm trying to find a >> compromise between the risk of introducing regressions and being stuck >> in my work. This email might help me to adjust my workflow. >> >> By the way, I'm trying to always run the full test suite (./python -m >> test -rW -j0) before pushing any change. If I suspect that I may have >> introduced reference leaks, I also run "./python -m test -R 3:3 ..." >> on the tests related to the modified code to check for >> memory/reference leaks. >> >> >> > * One other reason for the lack of review comments in the enthusiasm and >> > fervor surrounding the patches. I feel like there is a cost of questioning >> > whether the patches should be done or how they are done, like I am burning >> > little karma every time. Sometimes it feels safest and most cordial to >> > just >> > say nothing and let you make hundreds of semi-reviewed changes to just >> > about >> > every critical part of the language. >> >> "semi-reviewed". Let me be more accurate: yeah, I do push a lot of >> changes which were not reviewed by anyone (see above). >> >> >> > * Historically, if there was creator or maintainer of the code who was >> > still active, that person would always be consulted and have a final say on >> > whether a change should be applied. Now, we have code constantly being >> > changed without consulting the original author (for example, the recent and >> > catastrophic random initialization bug was due to application of a patch >> > without consulting the author of _randommodule.c and the maintainer of >> > random.py, or this change to sorted(), or the changes to decimal, etc). >> >> What do you mean by "author"? As you wrote, Python is now 26 years >> old, so it had a very long history, and each file has a very long list >> of "authors". I guess that you mean more a "maintainer". >> >> My problem is that I'm not aware of any explicit list of maintainers. >> I didn't know that you were the maintainer of the random module before >> you told me that at the Facebook sprint last september. I didn't >> expect that the random module had a maintainer, I thought that any >> core developer would be allowed to modify the code. >> >> Moreover, since I open an issue for most of my changes, it gives an >> opportunity to maintainers to review changes. Maybe we need more >> components in the bug tracker to notify maintainers of pending >> changes? >> >> >> You mentionned 3 different changes, let me reply. >> >> >> (1) The random change: http://bugs.python.org/issue29085 >> >> I introduced a regression in random.Random.seed(): a typo in the C >> code has the consequence that the current time and process identifier >> is used, instead of os.urandom(16), to initialize the Mersenne Twister >> RNG. >> >> IMHO the regression is not "catastrophic". Only few developers >> instanciate random.Random themself, random.Random must not be used for >> security, etc. I let others decide if this bug was catastrophic or >> not. >> >> >> Since we are talking about the development process, let me see how the >> change was made. >> >> Context: The PEP 524 has a long and painful history... Something like >> more than 500 messages were sent on the bug tracker and python-dev, >> and nobody was listening to each others, two security experts >> "rage-quitted" Python because of this mess... I decided to try to fix >> this issue in a constructive way, so I wrote a PEP. Nick wrote a >> different PEP, since it was clear that it was possible to handle >> security in two different incompatible ways. A mailing list was even >> created just to discuss this bug! A mailing list just for a bug gives >> an idea of the size of the mess :-) >> >> Well, about the change itself, it was done in >> http://bugs.python.org/issue27776 >> >> The patch was available for review during 19 days >> (2016-08-18-2016-09-06) and was reviewed by Nick Coghlan. Since Nick >> wrote a similar PEP, I trusted him to be able to review my change. >> (Well, anyway I already trust all core developers, but I mean that I >> was trusting him even more than usual :-)) >> >> Since the change has a big impact on security, I had prefer to get a >> review of more developers, especially our security experts... but as I >> wrote, two security experts "rage- quitted". Again, this PEP has a >> long and sad story :-/ >> >> Note: you say that you are the maintainer of the random module, but I >> don't recall having see you in any recent discussions and issues >> related to os.urandom(), whereas a lot of enhancements and changes >> were done last 2 years. I made many changes to support new OS >> functions like getentropy() an getrandom(). >> >> >> Oooookay, let's see the second change, "this change to sorted()", >> http://bugs.python.org/issue29327 >> >> (2) I introduced a bug in sorted(), last August: >> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/15eab21bf934/ >> >> Calling sorted(iterable=[]) does crash. To be honest, I didn't imagine >> that anyone would pass the iterable by keyword, but Serhiy is very >> good to spot bugs in corner cases :-) >> >> IMHO the regression is subtle. >> >> When I optimized the code to use FASTCALL, I replaced >> PyTuple_GetSlice(args, 1, argc) with &PyTuple_GET_ITEM(args, 1). I >> checked that all tests passed, so it looks ok to me. >> >> I didn't imagine that anyone would call sorted(iterable=[]), so I >> didn't notice that PyTuple_GetSlice() can create an empty tuple. >> >> The previous code was wrong since sorted() accepted iterable as a >> keyword, whereas sort.list() doesn't. >> >> So well, I let you guess if a review would have spot this bug in the >> large change. >> >> >> (3) Recently, I ran sed to replace code patterns to use faster ways to >> call functions: >> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/54a89144ee1d >> >> "Replace PyObject_CallObject(callable, NULL) with >> _PyObject_CallNoArg(callable)" >> >> I recalled that I modified the _decimal module and that Stefan Krah >> complained, because he wants to have the same code base on Python 3.5, >> 3.6 and 3.7. He also mentionned an external test suite which was >> broken by recent _decimal changes (not sure if my specific change was >> in cause or not), but I wasn't aware of it. >> >> To be honest, I didn't even notice that I modified _decimal when I ran >> sed on all .c files. Since the change was straightforward and (IMHO) >> made the code more readable, I didn't even wait for a review if I >> recall correctly. >> >> Stefan and me handled this issue privately (he reverted my change), >> I'm not sure that it's worth it to say more about this "issue" (or >> even "non-issue"). >> >> To be clear, I don't consider that my change introduced a regression. >> >> >> > * In general, Guido has been opposed to sweeping changes across the code >> > base for only tiny benefits. Of late, that rule seems to have been lost. >> > >> > * The benefits of FASTCALL mainly apply to fine grained functions which >> > only do a little work and tend to be called frequently in loops. For >> > functions such as sorted(), the calling overhead is dominated by the cost >> > of >> > actually doing the sort. For sorted(), FASTCALL is truly irrelevant and >> > likely wasn't worth the complexity, or the actual bug, or any of the time >> > we've now put in it. There was no actual problem being solved, just a >> > desire to broadly apply new optimizations. >> >> Ok, first, you qualify my FASTCALL changes as code churn. So let me >> show an example with sorted(): >> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b34d2ef5c412 >> >> Can you elaborate how such change increases the complexity? >> >> >> Second, "no actual problem being solved" >> >> Since the goal of FASTCALL is to optimize Python, I guess that you >> consider that the speedup doesn't justify the change. I gave numbers >> in the issue #29327: >> >> Microbenchmark on sorted() on Python 3.7 compared to 3.5 (before >> FASTCALL): >> --- >> haypo@smithers$ ./python -m perf timeit 'seq=list(range(10))' >> 'sorted(seq)' --compare-to=../3.5/python -v >> Median +- std dev: [3.5] 1.07 us +- 0.06 us -> [3.7] 958 ns +- 15 ns: >> 1.12x faster (-11%) >> >> haypo@smithers$ ./python -m perf timeit 'seq=list(range(10)); k=lambda >> x:x' 'sorted(seq, key=k)' --compare-to=../3.5/python -v >> Median +- std dev: [3.5] 3.34 us +- 0.07 us -> [3.7] 2.66 us +- 0.05 >> us: 1.26x faster (-21%) >> --- >> >> IMHO such speedup is significant even on a microbenchmark. Can you >> elaborate what are your criteria to decide if an optimization is worth >> it? >> >> >> >> > * Historically, we've relied on core developers showing restraint. Not >> > every idea that pops into their head is immediately turned into a patch >> > accompanied by pressure to apply it. Devs tended to restrict themselves to >> > parts of the code they knew best through long and careful study rather >> > sweeping through modules and altering other people's carefully crafted >> > code. >> >> Should I understand that I should restrict myself to some files? Or >> not touch some specific parts of Python, like... "your" code like >> random, itertools and collections modules? >> >> I replied to the 3 issues you mentioned previously and explained how I >> contribute to Python. >> >> >> > * FWIW, I applaud your efforts to reduce call overhead -- that has long >> > been a sore spot for the language. >> > >> > * Guido has long opposed optimizations that increase risk of bugs, >> > introduce complexity, or that affect long-term maintainability. In some >> > places, it looks like FASTCALL is increasing the complexity (replacing >> > something simple and well-understood with a wordier, more intricate API >> > that >> > I don't yet fully understand and will affect my ability to maintain the >> > surrounding code). >> >> I'm sorry, I didn't spent much time on explaing the FASTCALL design >> nor documenting my changes. It's partially deliberate to make >> everything related to FASTCALL private. Since it's a huge project >> modifying a lot of code, I wanted to wait until the APIs and the code >> stop moving too fast to take time to explain my work and document it. >> >> If you have specific questions, please go ahead. >> >> >> Shortest summary: >> >> * FASTCALL replaces (args: tuple, kwargs: optional dict) with (args: C >> array, nargs: int, kwnames: tuple of keyword keys). It's a new calling >> convention which allows to avoid a temporary tuple to pass positional >> arguments and avoids temporary dictionary to pass keyworkd arguments. >> >> * To use FASTCALL, C functions should be converted to the new >> METH_FASTCALL calling convention >> >> * PyObject_Call() can replaced with _PyObject_FastCallKeywords() or >> _PyObject_FastCallDict() (when we still get kwargs as a dict) in such >> conversion >> >> * Many existing C functions were optimized internally to use FASCALL, >> so even if you don't modify your code, you will benefit of it >> (speedup). Typical example: PyFunction_CallFunctionObjArgs(). >> >> >> The most massive change were purely internal and don't affect the most >> famous C APIs at all. In some cases, to fully benefit of FASTCALL, >> code should be modified. I'm trying to restrict such changes to Python >> internals, especially the most used functions. >> >> I expected that the required changes were straightforward enough, it >> looks like I was wrong, but I don't recall anyone, before you >> recently, asking for an explanation. >> >> >> >> > * It was no long ago that you fought tooth-and-nail against a single >> > line patch optimization I submitted. The code was clearly correct and had >> > a >> > simple disassembly to prove its benefit. Your opposition was based on "it >> > increases the complexity of the code, introduces a maintenance cost, and >> > increases the risk of bugs". In the end, your opposition killed the patch. >> > But now, the AC and FASTCALL patches don't seem to mind any of these >> > considerations. >> >> Context: http://bugs.python.org/issue26201 >> >> It seems like we need more _explicit_ rules to decide if an >> optimization is worth it or not. For me, the de facto standard request >> for an optimization is to prove it with a benchmark. I requested a >> benchmark, but you refused to provide it. >> >> So I ran my own benchmark and saw that your change made the modified >> code (PyList_Append()) 6% slower. I'm not sure that my bencmark was >> correct, but it was a first step to take a decision. >> >> >> To come back to FASTCALL, your point is that it doesn't provide any >> speedup. >> >> In most FASTCALL issues that I opened, I provide a script to reproduce >> my benchmark and the benchmark results. The speedup is usually betwen >> 10% and 20% faster. >> >> Should I understand that 6% slower is ok, whereas 10-20% faster is not >> good? Can you please elaborate? >> >> >> > * AC is supposed to be a CPython-only concept. But along the way APIs >> > are being changed without discussion. I don't mind that sorted() now >> > exposes *iterable* as a keyword argument, but it was originally left out on >> > purpose (Tim opined that code would look worse with iterable as a keyword >> > argument). That decision was reversed unilaterally without consulting the >> > author and without a test. Also as AC is being applied, the variable names >> > are being changed. I never really liked the "mp" that used in dicts and >> > prefer the use of "self" better, but it is a gratuitous change that >> > unilaterally reverses the decisions of the authors and makes the code not >> > match any of the surrounding code that uses the prior conventions. >> >> Ah, at least I concur with you on one point :-) Changes to convert >> functions to AC must not change the API (type of arguments: positional >> only/keyword/..., default values, etc.) nor provide a worse docstring. >> >> There is an active on-going work to enhance AC to fix issues that you >> reported, like the default value of positional-only parameters which >> should not be rendered in the function signature (I created the issue >> #29299 with a patch). Serhiy is also working on implementing the last >> major missing feature of AC: support *args and **kwargs parameters >> (issue #20291). >> >> FYI I wasn't involved in AC changes, I only started to look at AC >> recently (1 or 2 months ago). Again, I agree that these changes should >> be carefully reviewed, which is an hard task since required changes >> are usually large and move a lot of code. We need more eyes to look at >> these changes! >> >> For the specific case of sorted(), the name of first parameter is >> already documented in the docstring and documentation in Python 2.7: >> "iterable". So I guess that you mean that it is now possible to use it >> as a keyword argument. Well, see the issue #29327 for the long story. >> This issue is a regression, it was already fixed, and I didn't >> introduce the API change. >> >> >> Oh by the way, when I read your comment, I understand that I'm >> responsible of all regressions. It's true that I introduced >> regressions, that's where I said "shit happens" (or more politically >> correct: "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" ;-)). Since >> I'm one of the most active contributor in CPython, I'm not surprised >> of being the one who introduce many (most?) regressions :-) I'm trying >> to review my changes multiple times, test corner cases, etc. But I'm >> not perfect. >> >> Sadly, to show its full power, FASTCALL requires changes at many >> levels of the code. It requires to change at lot of code, but I >> understood that core developers approved the whole project. Maybe I >> was wrong? At least, I asked for permissions multiple changes, >> especially at the start. >> >> >> >> > * FWIW, the claim that the help is much better is specious. AFAICT, >> > there has never been the slightest problem with "sorted(iterable, key=None, >> > reverse=False) --> new sorted list" which has been clear since the day it >> > was released. It is some of the new strings the are causing problems with >> > users (my students frequently are tripped-up by the / notation for example; >> > no one seems to be able to intuit what it means without it being explained >> > first). >> >> Good news, it seems like you have a good experience in API design, >> documentation, etc. Join the "Argument Clinic" project to help us to >> enhance docstrings, function signatures and documentation ;-) >> >> See the good part of the AC on-going work: it's a nice opportunity to >> also enhance documentation, not only provide a signature. >> >> By the way, to be honest, the main advantage of converting functions >> to AC is to get a signature. The signature is visible in docstrings >> which is nice, but it is also very useful to a wide range of tools >> like (IDE, static checks, etc.). >> >> Conversion to FASTCALL is more a nice effect. At least, it is a good >> motivation for me to convert mor and more code to AC :-) >> >> AC moves docstring closer to the list of parameters. IHMO it makes the >> C code simpler to read and understand. It also removes the boring code >> responsible to "parse" arguments, so it makes the code shorter. But >> well, this is just my opinion. >> >> >> > * FWIW, I'm trying to be constructive and contribute where I can, but >> > frankly I can't keep up with the volume of churn. Having seen bugs being >> > introduced, it is not inappropriate to ask another dev to please be >> > careful, >> > especially when that dev has been prolific to an unprecedented degree and >> > altering core parts of the language for function calls, to new opcodes, the >> > memory allocators, etc. Very few people on the planet are competent to >> > review these changes, make reasonable assessments about whether the >> > complexity and churn are worth it. An fewer still have the time to keep up >> > with the volume of changes. >> >> >> Hum, I wasn't involved in bytecode changes. >> >> Well, I reviewed the very good work of Demur Rumed. I recall that you >> worked on a similar area, trying to fetch bytecode by 16-bit instead >> of 8-bit. Demur proposed a good design and I recall that the design >> was approved. >> >> I helped a little bit on the implementation and I pushed the final >> change, but all credits go to Demur and Serhiy Storshaka! By the way, >> Serhiy made further efficient enhancements in the bytecode of >> CALL_FUNCTION instructions. >> >> >> About memory allocations, I guess that you are referring to my change >> on PyMem_Malloc() allocator. I discussed the issue on python-dev and >> waited for approval of my peers before pushing anything, since I know >> well that it's a critical part of Python: >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-March/143467.html >> >> I provide all data requested by Marc Andre Lemburg (test the change >> with common projects, Django, Pillow, numpy) and made further changes >> (PYTHONMALLOC=debug tool) to help to handle this backward incompatible >> change (GIL is now required to call PyMem_Malloc). >> >> Hopefully, it seems like nobody noticed this subtle change (GIL now >> requied): I didn't see any bug report. By the way, I fixed a misused >> PyMem_Mem() in numpy. >> >> >> > * Please do continue your efforts to improve the language, but also >> > please moderate the rate of change, mitigate the addition complexity, value >> > stability over micro-optimizations, consult the authors and maintainers of >> > code, take special care without code that hasn't been reviewed because that >> > lacks a safety net, and remember that newer devs may be taking cues from >> > you >> > (do you want them making extensive changes to long existing stable code >> > without consulting the authors and with weak LGTM reviews?) >> >> Ok, I will do it. >> >> Thank you for you feedback Raymond. I hope that my email helps you to >> understand how I work and how I take my decisions. >> >> Victor >> _______________________________________________ >> python-committers mailing list >> python-committers@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers >> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
