On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 May 2010 11:56, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 20:42:12 +1000 >> Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not saying that Python-Dev should bend over backwards to accommodate >>> such people to the exclusion of all else, but these folks are >>> stakeholders too, and their wants and needs are just as worthy as the >>> wants and needs of those who prefer a more conservative approach to the >>> standard library. >> >> Well, my "Sumo" proposal was a serious one. >> (not serious in that I would offer to give a hand, but in that I think >> it could help those people; also, wouldn't it be sensible for users in >> a corporate environment to share their efforts and produce something >> that can benefit all of them? it's the free software spirit after all) > > I'm not sure how a "Sumo" approach would work in practical terms, and > this thread isn't really the place to discuss, but there's a couple of > points I think are worth making: > > * For a "Sumo" distribution to make sense, some relatively substantial > chunk of the standard library would need to be moved *out* to reside > in the sumo distribution. Otherwise it's not really a "sumo", just a > couple of modules that "nearly made it into the stdlib", at least for > the near-to-medium term. I've yet to see any sort of consensus that > python-dev is willing to undertake that decoupling work. (Which would > include extracting the various tests, migrating bugs out of the > pythion tracker, etc etc). > > * If the decoupled modules aren't simply being abandoned, python-dev > needs to continue to commit to supporting them "in the wild" (i.e., on > PyPI and in the sumo distribution). Otherwise we're just abandoning > existing users and saying "support it yourself". I've seen no > indication that python-dev members would expect to follow bug trackers > for various decoupled modules - so in practice, this sounds more like > abandonment than decoupling. > > Until a stdlib-decoupling proposal which takes these aspects into > account is on the table, I'm afraid that suggesting there's a "Sumo > distribution" style middle ground between stdlib and PyPI isn't really > true... > > Paul.
The fat vs. thin stdlib was discussed on stdlib-sig some time ago (I am generally +1 to having a thin dist and a secondary "fatter" dist), however right now, it doesn't make sense packaging and dependency management is still a mess (but getting better), and there's a ton of other things to take into consideration, some of which has been iterated in this thread. That being said, we've now evolved into meta-meta-meta-discussion - if people seriously want to discuss the fat vs. thin subject, it should probably go to stdlib-sig. jesse _______________________________________________ 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
