> Let me remind you though that I've been mostly unavailable for the past two > weeks at a work conference.
Cool, you're back :-) But my email was not against you. > That's why I set the 3.0 schedule the way I did. Personnaly, I don't want to get python 3.0 final with some broken modules or some criticial problems. So it's a good thing to delay the release until bugs are fixed. > One of the reasons why I'm very keen on us moving to a distributed version > control system is to help break the logjam on core developers. Yeah, exactly :-) Does anyone already maintain a distributed tree? Mercurial, GIT, anything else? I tried Mercurial which is nice (at least some small project). But I think that GIT is the fatest and most robust system. > you will be able to share your code, fixes, branches with everyone > in a much more live way than patches in a tracker. Right and it's very difficult to manage patches using the tracker. After writing the patch, I have to revert all patches to be able to write a new patch because it's easier to generate a patch in this way. But some patches depend on other patches :-/ > In any case, I know it's frustrating not to get good timely feedback A friend told me that his patch took 6 months to be applied :-/ (don't know which one) If Python would be more reactive, more developer will be attracted. The communication is very important in an open source project. I contributed to many many projects, and I can say that Python is already one of the most reactive project! But it can be better ;-) -- Victor Stinner aka haypo http://www.haypocalc.com/blog/ _______________________________________________ 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
