On Mar 14, 2012 5:27 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:16:40 -0700 > Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > > > Authors of separately maintained packages are, from our viewpoint, as > > > eligible to help with tracker issues as anyone else, even while they > > > continue work on their external package. Some of them are more likely than > > > most contributors to have the knowledge needed for some particular issues. > > > > This is a good idea. I was chatting w. Senthil this morning about > > adding improvements to urllib/request.py based upon ideas from > > urllib3, requests, httplib2 (?), and we came to the conclusion that it > > might be a good idea to let those packages' authors review the > > proposed stdlib improvements. > > We don't have any provisions against reviewal by third-party > developers already. I think the main problem (for us, of course) is that > these people generally aren't interested enough to really dive in > stdlib patches and proposals. > > For example, for the ssl module, I have sometimes tried to involve > authors of third-party packages such as pyOpenSSL (or, IIRC, M2Crypto), > but I got very little or no reviewing.
Rather than indicating apathy on the party of third party developers, this might be a sign that core Python is unapproachable or not worth the effort. For instance I have several one line patches languishing, I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have significantly larger patches ignored, but it happens.
_______________________________________________ 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
