On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/9/15 M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com>: >> Laura Creighton wrote: >>> So what do you think of this proposal? >> >> Good write-up and very much to the point. >> >> [Executive Summary: >> Code that hardly needs any changes, because it does what it's meant >> to do, is good code, not bad code. And it causes only minimal >> maintenance effort, so it's actually something core developer should >> welcome rather than fight against.] >> >> I'd only change the tag "dead-as-a-doornail" to "complete, proven and >> stable". Sounds more accurate. > > Yes, I like both the summary, and the proposal (that standard library > code be tagged with details like its status and its maintainer). > > I was in the "stdlib needs to evolve" camp, but this has clarified the > other side of the argument, and changed my mind. > > I'm still in favour of new modules being added to the stdlib, and > existing modules being updated, but I support the idea of stage C > (dead as a doornail/complete, proven, stable) modules being retained > indefinitely. I'm not sure what the implications of this position > would be in the case of argparse vs optparse (optparse doesn't seem to > be stage C, so maybe removing it in favour of argparse is an option) > but I like the fact that this proposal gives us terminology on which > we can base the discussion. > > Paul.
There is no, no such thing as a "dead/complete" module. It does not exist. Any time there is a grammar change, a new reserved keyword, or some other functionality change a "dead" module comes back to life and has to be maintained. Can we please not treat "dead/complete" modules as if they have no maintenance burden, or drag down the code base? The reason I avoided that terminology in the first place is that there is no such thing as code with zero cost. jesse _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
