On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:07:42 -0400, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Lennart Regebro <rege...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Ãric Araujo <e...@netwok.org> wrote: > > > âfind a PEP dictator and propose changesâ. And when I started the > > > thread about removing packaging in 3.3, hundreds of replies discussed > > > changing the whole distutils architecture, splitting the project, > > > exploring new systems, etc., > > > > Yes, yes, but that's just the same old drama that pops up every time > > this is discussed with the same old arguments all over again. We'll > > never get anywhere if we care about *that*. > > > > The way to go forward is via PEPs, fix them if needed, implement in a > > separate package, stick into stdlib once it works. > > > > I agree with Lennart's and Antoine's advice of just move forward with what > we have. If some PEPs need fixing then let's fix them, but we don't need to > rock the horse even more by going overboard. Getting the sane, core bits > into the stdlib as packaging is meant to is plenty to take on. If people > want to reinvent stuff they can do it elsewhere. I personally don't care if > it is done inside or outside the stdlib initially or if it stays in > packaging or goes directly into distutils, but forward movement with what > we have is the most important thing.
When the removal was being pondered, the possibility of keeping certain bits that were more ready than others was discussed. Perhaps the best way forward is to put it back in bits, with the most finished (and PEP relevant) stuff going in first. That might also give non-packaging people bite-sized-enough chunks to actually digest and help with. --David
_______________________________________________ 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
