On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org>wrote:
> 2013/3/20 Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org>: > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > > >>IDLE would be a great first foray into this "separate project" world, > >>because it is many ways a separate project. > > > > I really think that's true. A separate project, occasionally sync'd > back into > > the stdlib by a core dev seems like the right way to manage IDLE. > > I would advise against this. Basically, every "externally-maintained" > package with have causes pain. For example, the stdlib now has some > long-diverged fork of simplejson. With xml.etree, it was not clear for > years whether core developers could touch it even though the external > project had died. Either the stdlib and IDLE should go separate ways > or development has to happen in the stdlib with CPython release > schedule and policies. > There are other dependencies like libffi, but I really think IDLE is different. xml.etree and libffi are building blocks upon which a lot of users' code depends. So we have to keep maintaining them (unless there's some sort of agreed deprecation process). IDLE is really a stand-alone project built on Python. It's unique in this respect. Eli
_______________________________________________ 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
