-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
The problem is that the obvious candidate for doing the vetting is
the
Release Manager, and Barry doesn't like this approach. The vetting
does
need to be handled by a core committer IMO -- MAL, are you
volunteering?
Anyone else?
It should be someone who is using 3.0 regularly (ideally someone who
is working on fixing it). IMO, people who aren't exercising it
don't really
have a feel for the problems or the cost/benefits of the fixes.
That's not the right way to look at it. I'm using 2.6 heavily these
days, does that mean I get to decide what goes in it or not? No.
Everyone here, whether they are using 2.6 or not should weigh in, with
of course one BDFL to rule them all.
Same goes for 3.0. This is a community effort and I feel strongly
that we should work toward reaching consensus (that seems to be an
American theme these days). Make your case, we'll listen to the pros
and cons, decide as a community and then move on.
Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSYMcnHEjvBPtnXfVAQK+aQQApR5McrCOiYUf6RiNvmrDKmTShMde4iWt
Rh9x3wY3EVQskcgdpd+05VSfceVCKJJlqbR1NdMDtnuzM8aD56qQyAxYHhqYyxkh
0adHg1ZmYt/95K0/WE3DM8NoBUPxUFIb4nyeprGBsYola9BUQNc//VSRSIyXf0U6
p3xwN8oQS/c=
=KKeq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
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
