On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > Le lundi 14 septembre 2009 à 11:13 -0400, Jesse Noller a écrit : >> Note, since I drafted this, brett's posted some thought on evolution >> as well: http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2009/09/evolving-standard-library.html > > I tried to comment on it but, after a lot of pain editing my thoughts > (the text editor on that blog is completely broken in my browser), it > seems the comment got lost when I clicked "post"... > >> In thinking about this even more over the past year(ish) - I've >> wondered if the stdlib, and python-core should actually be *really* >> separated. I'm a huge fan of batteries included, but I can see the >> draw to a breakdown like this: >> >> python-core (no stdlib, interpreter, core language) >> python-stdlib (no core) > > Note, however, that an interpreter without stdlib is useless. Even basic > I/O (on Python 3) may not function properly. Conversely, the stdlib will > depend on certain interpreter features, or even implementation details. > So, while we can put them in separate VCSes, the development of > python-core and python-stdlib will be still be quite tied.
Understood; there is a simple "basic set of widgets" we do *need* - but it's terribly smaller than what we have now. >> python-full (the works) > > What is this? core + stdlib? Yes. >> From a packaging standpoint - >> it's a lot easier to spin a new stdlib package and get it into an OS >> upstream then the entire interpreter. > > I'm not convinced. A new stdlib can lead to as many compatibility > problems as a new interpreter does. And it seems that compatibility / > dependency management is the #1 problem in packaging. I'm not trying to solve that, Tarek is ;) >> I would personally like to see every single stdlib library have an >> "owner" - I know, that's a long shot, but I really feel it's needed. >> Otherwise you potentially have people reviewing patches for code they >> may not fully understand, or not understand the ramifications of. > > On the other hand, having an owner can be detrimental to maintenance. > For example, nobody wants to touch ElementTree except Fredrik, and > Fredrik isn't very active these days. > We should also say to no to externally-maintained modules, because it > completely ruins maintenance for us core developers. Then Fredrik is no longer the maintainer - I'm looking at this through rather harsh eyes, true, but my goal is progress and quality - not being nice, so I'm sorry if I'm overly harsh. And externally maintained modules are an oxymoron, no? :) jesse _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
