On 11/28/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Perhaps the following compromise can be made: the PSF accepts patches > > from reputable platform maintainers. (Of course, like all > > contributions, they must be of high quality and not break anything, > > etc., before they are accepted.) If such patches cause problems with > > later Python versions, the PSF won't maintain them, but instead invite > > the original contributors (or other developers who are interested in > > that particular port) to fix them. If there is insufficient response, > > or if it comes too late given the PSF release schedule, the PSF > > developers may decide to break or remove support for the affected > > platform. > > This is indeed the compromise I was after. If the contributors indicate > that they will maintain it for some time (which happened in this case), > then I can happily accept any port (and did indeed in the past). > > In the specific case, there is an additional twist that we deliberately > removed DOS support some time ago, and listed that as officially removed > in a PEP. I understand that djgpp somehow isn't quite the same as DOS, > although I don't understand the differences (anymore). > > But if it's fine with you, it is fine with me.
Thanks. :-) I say, the more platforms the merrier. I don't recall why DOS support was removed (PEP 11 doesn't say) but I presume it was just because nobody volunteered to maintain it, not because we have a particularly dislike for DOS. So now that we have a volunteer let's deal with his patches without prejudice. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
