Stephen J. Turnbull:
Python is open source. Nobody is objecting to somebody else doing
this.[1] The problem here is simply that some somebody elses are
trying to throw future work over the wall into python-dev space.
If that's how it's seen at this point, then it sounds like the logical
Tony Kelman writes:
If potential contributors have a desire to get it working in the
first place, then they will also be invested in helping keep it
working on an ongoing basis.
Sure -- as long as it works for them, though, such potential
contributors don't necessarily care if it works for
Stephen J. Turnbull:
Sure -- as long as it works for them, though, such potential
contributors don't necessarily care if it works for anybody else. My
experience (in other projects) is that allowing that level of
commitment to be sufficient for inclusion in the maintained code base
frequently
On 28 October 2014 14:46, Tony Kelman kel...@berkeley.edu wrote:
Patches should be done well and accompanied with proper documentation
so new functionality is fully reproducible. If that's what's holding
up review, comments in the bug threads indicating as much would be
helpful.
Typically
Hi,
At the end of August, I sent the PEP 475 which I wrote with
Charles-François Natali:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-August/136077.html
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-September/136101.html
Antoine Pitrou wrote I'm +1 on the whole PEP and R. David
Oh, I forgot the link to the PEP:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0475/
Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On 10/28/2014 6:45 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
because it's a fork, it's a different name
I think this is an important point, and first brought to this discussion
here. A fork is _not_ called Python, but something else... but if it is
kept extremely compatible and up-to-date in the hopes of
I would like this to happen, but I'm afraid of breakage, and I don't have
time. I would be okay if Antoine agrees to be the PEP-BDFL.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Oh, I forgot the link to the PEP:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0475/
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:07:45 +0100
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
At the end of August, I sent the PEP 475 which I wrote with
Charles-François Natali:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-August/136077.html
2014-10-28 22:36 GMT+01:00 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
Is there an implementation somewhere?
There is no implementation yet. This time, I chose to focus on the PEP
before working on an implementation :-)
We can work on the implementation if it helps discuss the PEP. I
created a
Tony Kelman writes:
No, just hearing the words come out of my mouth they sound a little
nuts. Maybe not, there are after all half a dozen or more
incompatible alternate Python implementations floating around. I
think most of them started as from-scratch rewrites rather than
source
11 matches
Mail list logo
