On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > On Mar 20, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >>I didn't hear any at the sprint here. > > JFDI! :)
Please don't rush this. We have Roger Serwy being given commit privileges specifically to work on Idle, Terry's PEP proposing to make it explicit that we consider IDLE an application bundled with Python that can receive new features in maintenance releases and several people expressing interest in helping to make IDLE better (primarily educators, including Katie Cunningham, one of the teachers who ran the Raspberry Pi based Young Coders sessions for teens and pre-teens here at PyCon). These are the people who care about Idle, we should be recruiting them to work on it *as it is now*, and then letting them decide if they wish to continue working on it as it is now, or if they prefer to move to a more inclusive development platform which allows them to accept pull requests rather than requiring patches to be generated locally and uploaded to our tracker. It's not as simple as saying "let's split it out to a separate repo and then bundle it", because bundling still means python-dev is placing it's stamp of approval on the application, which means we should be satisfied that the developers leading the project are people we trust as stewards of software we distribute. Yes, the status quo of Idle is not something we should allow to continue indefinitely, but decisions about its future development should be made by active maintainers that are already trusted to make changes to it (such as Terry and Roger), rather than those of us that don't use it, and aren't interested in maintaining it. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
