On 01/07/2010 01:23 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
As Simon pointed out, while some organisations do work that way, the PSF
isn't one of them.
The PSF only requires that the code be contributed under a license that
then allows us to turn around and redistribute it under a different open
source license without requesting additional permission from the
copyright holder. For corporate contributions, I believe the contributor
agreement needs to be signed by an authorised agent of the company - the
place to check that would probably be [email protected] (that's the email
address for the PSF board).
Assuming the subject line relates to the code that you would like to
contribute though, that particular change is unlikely to happen - 2.6 is
in maintenance mode and changing RLock from a Python implementation to
the faster C one is solidly in new feature territory. Although a
backport of the 3.2 C RLock implementation to 2.7 could be useful, I
doubt that backporting code provided by an existing committer would be
the subject of this query :)
Regards,
Nick.
Yes, it is the new RLock implementation.
If I understood this correctly, we should make a patch against trunk if
anything should be contributed.
Do you mean that we wouldn't need the paperwork for backporting the
original patch committed to py3k?
Regards
Johan Gill
Agama Technologies
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
