Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On 29Nov2018 0923, Antoine Pitrou wrote: I think the whole argument amounts to hand waving anyway. You are inventing an extended distribution which doesn't exist (except as Anaconda) to justify that we shouldn't accept more modules in the stdlib. But obviously maintaining an extended

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

Le 29/11/2018 à 19:07, Steve Dower a écrit : > On 29Nov2018 0923, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> I think the whole argument amounts to hand waving anyway. You are >> inventing an extended distribution which doesn't exist (except as >> Anaconda) to justify that we shouldn't accept more modules in the

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 10:32 Antoine Pitrou > >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:49:32 -0800 >> Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> > >> > There are a lot of challenges to switching to a "standard distribution" >> > model. I'm not certain it's the best

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

Le 29/11/2018 à 18:17, Christian Heimes a écrit : > > If we would keep the standard distribution of Python as it is and just > have a Python SIG offer an additional extended distribution on > python.org, then I don't have to care about the quality and security of > additional code. The Python

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

meta: I'm not participating in this sub-thread. Just changing the subject line. On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:17 AM Christian Heimes wrote: > On 29/11/2018 17.32, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > We may ask ourselves if there is really a large difference between a > > "standard distribution" and a

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:49:32 -0800 Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > There are a lot of challenges to switching to a "standard distribution" > model. I'm not certain it's the best option. But what I like about it is > that it could potentially reduce the conflict between what our different > user

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

Le 29/11/2018 à 20:05, Nathaniel Smith a écrit : > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 10:32 Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:49:32 -0800 > Nathaniel Smith mailto:n...@pobox.com>> wrote: > > > > There are a lot of challenges to switching to a

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:52, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 08:34 Antoine Pitrou > >> >> Le 29/11/2018 à 17:25, Steve Dower a écrit : >> > >> > My experience is that the first group would benefit from a larger >> > _standard distribution_, which is not necessarily the same

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On 29Nov2018 1020, Antoine Pitrou wrote: It's just _hard_ and an awful lot of work, and apparently you're not volunteering to start it. So saying "we should make an extended distribution" if you're just waiting for others to do the job doesn't sound convincing to me, it just feels like you are

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On 29/11/2018 17.32, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > We may ask ourselves if there is really a large difference between a > "standard distribution" and a "standard library". The primary > difference seems to be that the distribution is modular, while the > stdlib is not. Yes, there is a huge difference

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 08:34 Antoine Pitrou > Le 29/11/2018 à 17:25, Steve Dower a écrit : > > > > My experience is that the first group would benefit from a larger > > _standard distribution_, which is not necessarily the same thing as a > > larger stdlib. > > > > I'm firmly on the "smaller core,

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 2:55 PM Paul Moore ... and some users need a single, unambiguous choice for the > "official, complete" distribution. Which need the current stdlib > serves extremely well. > Except it doesn't. At least not for a large swatch of users. 10 years ago, what I wanted in Python

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 18:09, Steve Dower wrote: > > On 29Nov2018 0923, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > I think the whole argument amounts to hand waving anyway. You are > > inventing an extended distribution which doesn't exist (except as > > Anaconda) to justify that we shouldn't accept more modules

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:08:56 +0100 Christian Heimes wrote: > > The owners and developers of these projects set their own terms and > don't follow the same rigorous CI, backwards compatibility and security > policies as Python core. You can't force projects to work differently. Who's talking

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:28, Steve Dower wrote: > My experience is that the first group would benefit from a larger > _standard distribution_, which is not necessarily the same thing as a > larger stdlib. > > I'm firmly on the "smaller core, larger distribution" side of things, > where we as the

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:48 PM Oscar Benjamin wrote: > There have been significant improvements in pip, pypi and the whole > packaging ecosystem in recent years thanks to the efforts of many > including Paul. I've been pushing students and others to Anaconda > simply because I knew that at

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:30:28PM -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote: [...] > > > https://anaconda.com/ > > > https://www.activestate.com/products/activepython/ > > > http://winpython.github.io/ > > > http://python-xy.github.io/ > > > https://www.enthought.com/product/canopy/ > > >

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:33 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > https://anaconda.com/ > > > https://www.activestate.com/products/activepython/ > > > http://winpython.github.io/ > > > http://python-xy.github.io/ > > > https://www.enthought.com/product/canopy/ > > >

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 14:12, Andrew Svetlov wrote: > Neither http.client nor http.server doesn't support compression > (gzip/compress/deflate) at all. > I doubt if we want to add this feature: for client better to use requests > or, well, aiohttp. > The same for servers: almost any production

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 00:17, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:30:28PM -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > [...] > > > > https://anaconda.com/ > > > > https://www.activestate.com/products/activepython/ > > > > http://winpython.github.io/ > > > > http://python-xy.github.io/ > >

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:52 AM Brett Cannon wrote: > >> Are we getting to the point that we want a compresslib like hashlib if we >> are going to be adding more compression algorithms? >> > > Lets avoid the lib suffix when

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On 29Nov2018 1229, Paul Moore wrote: On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 18:09, Steve Dower wrote: Maintaining a list of "we recommend these so strongly here's an installer that will give them to you" is a very different kind of burden, and one that is significantly easier to bear. OK, so that reduces

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On 29/11/2018 22.08, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:11 AM Christian Heimes > wrote: >> You are assuming that you can convince or force upstream developers to >> change their project and development style. Speaking from personal >> experience, that is even unrealistic for

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

Neither http.client nor http.server doesn't support compression (gzip/compress/deflate) at all. I doubt if we want to add this feature: for client better to use requests or, well, aiohttp. The same for servers: almost any production ready web server from PyPI supports compression. I don't insist

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On 29Nov2018 1230, Gregory P. Smith wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:58 AM Andrew Svetlov > wrote: 5 cents about lz4 alternatives: Broli (mentioned above) is widely supported by web.

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 21:33, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:22 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > Le 29/11/2018 à 19:07, Steve Dower a écrit : > > > On 29Nov2018 0923, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > >> I think the whole argument amounts to hand waving anyway. You are > > >>

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:11 AM Christian Heimes wrote: > You are assuming that you can convince or force upstream developers to > change their project and development style. Speaking from personal > experience, that is even unrealistic for projects that are already > developed and promoted by

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On 29Nov2018 1330, Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:22 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote: Le 29/11/2018 à 19:07, Steve Dower a écrit : On 29Nov2018 0923, Antoine Pitrou wrote: I think the whole argument amounts to hand waving anyway. You are inventing an extended distribution which

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:22 PM Steve Dower wrote: > FWIW, Brotli has been supported in Microsoft Edge since early last year: > > > https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/12/20/introducing-brotli-compression/ > > Thanks, good to know. -- Thanks, Andrew Svetlov

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:22 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 29/11/2018 à 19:07, Steve Dower a écrit : > > On 29Nov2018 0923, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> I think the whole argument amounts to hand waving anyway. You are > >> inventing an extended distribution which doesn't exist (except as > >>

Re: [Python-Dev] C API changes

Hi, On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 18:19, Steve Dower wrote: > quo. We continue to not be able to change CPython internals at all, > since that will break people using option B. No? That will only break users if they only have an option-B ``foo.cpython-318m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so``, no option-A .so and

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:52:29 + Paul Moore wrote: > [This is getting off-topic, so I'll limit my comments to this one email] > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 03:17, Brett Cannon wrote: > > We have never really had a discussion about how we want to guide the stdlib > > going forward (e.g. how much

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:27 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:43:04AM -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > > PyPI makes getting more algorithms easy. > > Can we please stop over-generalising like this? PyPI makes getting > more algorithms easy for *SOME* people. (Sorry for

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

[This is getting off-topic, so I'll limit my comments to this one email] On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 03:17, Brett Cannon wrote: > We have never really had a discussion about how we want to guide the stdlib > going forward (e.g. how much does PyPI influence things, focus/theme, etc.). > Maybe we

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:02:29 +1100 Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:14:03PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 13:29, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:43:04AM -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > > > > > > PyPI makes getting

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 09:13, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > Q: Are there other popular alternatives to fill that niche that we should > strongly consider instead or as well? > > 5 years ago the answer would've been Snappy. 15 years ago the answer > would've been LZO. > Today LZ4 hits a sweet spot

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

5 cents about lz4 alternatives: Broli (mentioned above) is widely supported by web. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Accept-Encoding mentions it along with gzip and deflate methods. I don't recall lz4 or Zstd metioning in this context. Both Chrome/Chromium and Firefox

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, at 04:54, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:52:29 + > Paul Moore wrote: > > [This is getting off-topic, so I'll limit my comments to this one email] > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 03:17, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > We have never really had a discussion

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

Le 29/11/2018 à 15:36, Benjamin Peterson a écrit : >> >> I'd like to point the discussion is asymmetric here. >> >> On the one hand, people who don't have access to PyPI would _really_ >> benefit from a larger stdlib with more batteries included. >> >> On the other hand, people who have access to

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, at 15:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:43:04AM -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > > PyPI makes getting more algorithms easy. > > Can we please stop over-generalising like this? PyPI makes getting > more algorithms easy for *SOME* people. (Sorry

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 11:00, Andrew Svetlov wrote: > I worked with lz4 python binding a year ago. > It sometimes crashed to core dump when used in multithreaded environment (we > used to run compressor/decompresson with asyncio by loop.run_in_executor() > call). > I hope the bug is fixed now,

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, at 08:45, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 29/11/2018 à 15:36, Benjamin Peterson a écrit : > >> > >> I'd like to point the discussion is asymmetric here. > >> > >> On the one hand, people who don't have access to PyPI would _really_ > >> benefit from a larger stdlib with more

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 6:56 AM Benjamin Peterson > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, at 15:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:43:04AM -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > > > > PyPI makes getting more algorithms easy. > > > > Can we please stop over-generalising like this? PyPI makes

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:05:47 -0500 "Benjamin Peterson" wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, at 08:45, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > Le 29/11/2018 à 15:36, Benjamin Peterson a écrit : > > >> > > >> I'd like to point the discussion is asymmetric here. > > >> > > >> On the one hand, people who don't

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 14:56, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > While I'm sympathetic to users in such situations, I'm not sure how much we > can really help them. These are the sorts of users who are likely to still be > stuck using Python 2.6. Any stdlib improvements we discuss and implement >

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:53:30AM -0500, Benjamin Peterson wrote: [...] > > This is not an argument either for or against adding LZ4, I have no > > opinion either way. But it is a reminder that "just get it from PyPI" > > represents an extremely privileged position that not all Python users >

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:36:51AM -0500, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > - stdlib modules become a permanent maintenance burden to CPython core > developers. Add ditributions maintainers here. Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmanhttps://phdru.name/p...@phdru.name

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 15:52, Oleg Broytman wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:36:51AM -0500, Benjamin Peterson > wrote: > > - stdlib modules become a permanent maintenance burden to CPython core > > developers. > >Add ditributions maintainers here. Well, given that "you shouldn't use

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:36:51AM -0500, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > I don't think it's asymmetric. People have raised several practical > problems with a large stdlib in this thread. These include: > > - The evelopment of stdlib modules slows to the rate of the Python > release schedule.

Re: [Python-Dev] Standard library vs Standard distribution?

On 29/11/2018 18.23, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 29/11/2018 à 18:17, Christian Heimes a écrit : >> >> If we would keep the standard distribution of Python as it is and just >> have a Python SIG offer an additional extended distribution on >> python.org, then I don't have to care about the

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 10:32 Antoine Pitrou On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:49:32 -0800 > Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > > There are a lot of challenges to switching to a "standard distribution" > > model. I'm not certain it's the best option. But what I like about it is > > that it could potentially reduce

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:58 AM Andrew Svetlov wrote: > 5 cents about lz4 alternatives: Broli (mentioned above) is widely > supported by web. > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Accept-Encoding > mentions it along with gzip and deflate methods. > I don't recall lz4 or

Re: [Python-Dev] C API changes

On 28Nov2018 2208, Armin Rigo wrote: Hi Steve, On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 19:14, Steve Dower wrote: On 27Nov2018 0609, Victor Stinner wrote: Note: Again, in my plan, the new C API would be an opt-in API. The old C API would remain unchanged and fully supported. So there is no impact on

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

On 29Nov2018 0254, Antoine Pitrou wrote: I'd like to point the discussion is asymmetric here. On the one hand, people who don't have access to PyPI would _really_ benefit from a larger stdlib with more batteries included. On the other hand, people who have access to PyPI _don't_ benefit from

Re: [Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?

Le 29/11/2018 à 17:25, Steve Dower a écrit : > > My experience is that the first group would benefit from a larger > _standard distribution_, which is not necessarily the same thing as a > larger stdlib. > > I'm firmly on the "smaller core, larger distribution" side of things, > where we as

[Python-Dev] Extended Python distribution [was: Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?]

On 29/11/2018 17.25, Steve Dower wrote: > On 29Nov2018 0254, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> I'd like to point the discussion is asymmetric here. >> >> On the one hand, people who don't have access to PyPI would _really_ >> benefit from a larger stdlib with more batteries included. >> >> On the other