[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The local python community here in Sydney indicated that python.org is > only upset when groups port the source to 'obscure' systems and *don't* > submit patches... It is possible that I was misinformed.
I never heard such concerns. I personally wouldn't notice if somebody ported Python, and did not feed back the patches. Sometimes, people ask "there is this and that port, why isn't it integrated", to which the answer is in most cases "because authors didn't contribute". This is not being upset - it is merely a fact. This port (djgcc) is the first one in a long time (IIRC) where anybody proposed rejecting it. > I am not sure about the future myself. DJGPP 2.04 has been parked at beta > for two years now. It might be fair to say that the *general* DJGPP > developer base has shrunk a little bit. But the PythonD userbase has > actually grown since the first release three years ago. For the time > being, people get very angry when the servers go down here :-) It's not that much availability of the platform I worry about, but the commitment of the Python porter. We need somebody to forward bug reports to, and somebody to intervene if incompatible changes are made. This person would also indicate that the platform is no longer available, and hence the port can be removed. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
