Tres Seaver writes: > On 03/27/2014 04:11 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > > Maybe. That depends on if you care about the convenience of folks > > who have to get new modules past Corporate Security, but it's easier > > to get an upgrade of the whole shebang. I don't think it's ever > > really been resolved whether they're a "typical case that won't go > > away" or a special group whose special needs should be considered. > > ISTM that such concerns should be addressed via some kind of paid support > contract (a la RHEL), and not used to drive decisions for the underlying > FLOSS project. The existence of aggregated resources from such a support > organization would then be relevant to the "include / exclude" > discussion: presumably the support organization could fund the > maintenance of the otherwise-excluded module based on its customers' > paid-for needs.
So, let me get this straight: you think that one user should pay Red Hat to vet the package for RHEL, and another user should pay to get it into Ubuntu, and another user to get it into SuSE? And then the distros should all pay lawyers to write contracts to make sure that nobody is paying too much for support in the stdlib when they eventually get it in? (Except the customers, of course, everybody will be happy if *they* pay more than they need to.) Seems to me that putting it into stdlib in the first place makes more sense, if it's going to end up there at all. Another way to put it is, we need a better way to fund support of "routine maintenance" (ie, the unfun parts) than negotiating it module by module. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
