On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:56 PM, Florent <florent.xicl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-04-26 0:46 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com>: >> Florent is claiming the endorsement of the PEP 8 authors >> and the consensus of python-dev for the tool's default behaviour >> (as noted above, this makes it personal for me, as I am a >> co-author of PEP 8). > > You're a co-author of PEP 8 since less than a year. > I'm the maintainer of the pep8 tool since 2010. > > You should probably read the LICENSE file which is shipped with the > pep8 too, and the disclaimer that I've posted previously. Never I > engage the responsibility of the authors of the PEP 8 document, and I > don't give any guarantee of being a *strict* PEP 8 compliance tool. I agree that I’ve never taken the name to mean that you’re claiming any sort of endorsement. There are a *vast* number of projects that implement something that was defined somewhere else and I don’t think any reasonable person can assume that all of those tools are endorsed by the authors of what they are implementing. > > However, you should notice that your ticket in the tracker is opened > for 2 months only, and I did not flagged it as being resolved. As > I've stated in my previous mail, I give priority to bugs over other > requests. And even if you think it is a critical bug for yourself, it > did not appear like that for the thousands of people which used the > library for the last few years. > > But if you read the documentation carefully, you can see that I've > already excluded some checks from the default behavior in the previous > releases, when there was an argument which was backed by the PEP 8 > itself: > "In the default configuration, the checks E123, E133, E226, E241 and > E242 are ignored > because they are not rules unanimously accepted, and PEP 8 does not > enforce them." > http://pep8.readthedocs.org/en/latest/intro.html#error-codes > The question stay opened for issue #256 and codes E121 and E701. > As I said before, they are not against PEP 8, they interpret some words. > If you're nitpicking, you can probably reject half the checks of the > pep8 tool with similar allegations. > >> I *want* to be able to recommend this tool universally. But at the moment, >> I cannot, as its name is a lie: it enforces rules I don't personally agree >> with. > > Maybe I prefer you don't recommend it in the PEP 8 documentation if it > means I'll be tied to your "personal preferences" and that I'll be > forced to patch it every now and then when you change a line, or a > punctuation in a PEP 8 example. > > At the end, I find you're a bit rude when you come to this project > which is not endorsed by the PSF or any Python-Dev related entity and > you say "this project is wrong, because the developer did not obey to > me when I order to remove that feature". > You're more sympathetic and less in a hurry when it comes to some > languishing bug on b.p.o :-) > > If you're so impatient, let's fork it and put in in cpython/Tools/ > I would not fight against it. > > Sincerely, > > -- > Florent > _______________________________________________ > 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/donald%40stufft.io ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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