At 01:49 AM 6/13/2006 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > This should definitely be explained to authors who are donating > > libraries to the stdlib, because from my perspective it seemed to me > > that I was graciously volunteering to be responsible for *all* the work > > related to wsgiref. > >It's not only about python-wide changes. It is also for regular error >corrections: whenever I commit a bug fix that somebody contributed, I >now have to understand the code, and the bug, and the fix.
Again, my point was that I was volunteering to do all of those things for wsgiref. >Under PEP 360, I have to do all of these, *plus* checking PEP 360 to determine >whether I will step on somebodies' toes. I also have to consult PEP 291, >of course, to find out whether the code has additional compatibility >requirements. In the wsgiref case, you mustn't forget PEP 333 either, actually. :) >So ideally, I would like to see the external maintainers state "we can >deal with occasional breakage arising from somebody forgetting the >procedures". This would scale, as it would put the responsibility >for the code on the shoulders of the maintainer. It appears that Thomas >Heller says this would work for him, and it worked for bsddb and >PyXML. I've also already said I can use Barry's approach, making the Python SVN repository version the primary home of wsgiref and taking snapshots to make releases from. I didn't realize that cross-directory linkages of that sort were allowed, or I'd have done it that way in the first place. Certainly it would've been a more effective use of my time to do so. :) _______________________________________________ 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
