> > On Mar 20, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org > > <mailto:ba...@python.org>> wrote: > > > >> Right. Ultimately, I think IDLE should be a separate project > entirely, but I > >> guess there's push back against that too. > > > > The most important feature of IDLE is that it ships with the > standard library. > > Everyone who clicks on the Windows MSI on the python.org < > http://python.org> > > webpage > > automatically has IDLE. That is why I frequently teach Python with > IDLE. > > > > If this thread results in IDLE being ripped out of the standard > distribution, > > then I would likely never use it again. > > > > > > Why is it necessary to conflate distribution and development. "standard > library" > > != "Python distribution". > > Because that's how CPython defines its distribution. We distribute things > that > are in the CPython/standard library repo, and nothing else. >
Yes, I realize this is the case. I was wondering whether it's hard to change. > > > Take the ActivePython distribution for example. They ship with extra > packages > > for Windows (pywin32, etc) and our Python installer doesn't. This is a > reason > > many Windows people prefer ActivePython. That's their right, but this > preference > > is not the point. The point is that it's perfectly conceivable to ship > IDLE with > > Python releases on Windows, while managing it as a separate project > outside the > > CPython core Mercurial repository. > > And what's the benefit? I just don't see it. It just makes it harder to > create > a Python release. > > This is the feedback I was looking for. If this will make Python distribution non-trivially harder, then it's a point against the proposal. > > This seems to me to combine benefits from both worlds: > > > > 1. IDLE keeps being shipped to end users. I have to admit the reasons > made in > > favor of this in the thread so far are convincing. > > 2. IDLE is developed as a standalone project. As such, it's much easier > to > > contribute to, which will hopefully result in a quicker pace of > improvement. > > Why? You won't magically gather more people that are interested in IDLE > development. > But that's the point - If there are not enough people interested in it, it should then die. Right now it's a burden of Python core developers to keep it functional even if no one else cares (and if anything, the low amount of open issues Terry quoted elsewhere may be a sign that indeed not many care). > > > The > > only demand is that it keeps working with a release version of Python, > and this > > is pretty easy. It's even possible and easy to have a single IDLE > version for > > Python 3.x instead of contributors having to propose patches for 3.2, > 3.3 and > > 3.4 simultaneously. > > They don't anyway. > But we know perfectly well that a core dev is expected to backport reasonably. In an outside repo, it can have a single-code base. It's not hard to avoid the new features of 3.3 and 3.4 and be compatible with all active Python 3 versions. Note that even if the same is done in our Mercurial repo, each commit still needs to be triplicated in the push dance. 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
