On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 17:14 -0400, R. David Murray a écrit : >> >> Actually I believe I heard from someone other than Laura that required >> options were explicitly rejected. > > This is one of the reasons why I'm against exclusive module ownership. > If a reasonable number of people think a feature would benefit the > community, the module owner shouldn't be able to veto it on ideological > (or whatever other personal) grounds. > > In any case, this is not directly an argument against optparse itself, > if someone (Armin?) decides to maintain it with a more open attitude.
And I can find at least 176 reasons why owners are a good idea: http://bugs.python.org/issue?%40search_text=&title=&%40columns=title&id=&%40columns=id&stage=4&creation=&creator=&activity=&%40columns=activity&%40sort=activity&actor=&nosy=&type=&components=&versions=&dependencies=&assignee=&keywords=&priority=&%40group=priority&status=1&%40columns=status&resolution=&nosy_count=&message_count=&%40pagesize=50&%40startwith=0&%40queryname=&%40old-queryname=&%40action=search There will always be some owners who insist on idealistic purity over serving external users - just look at every PEP that crosses python-dev. However; this is not a case against owners - this is a case against bad owners. The fact is, we need people who feel responsibility for every one of these modules to review patches, and have some amount of mental design integrity to ensure modules don't just wander off into the sunset and die. jesse _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
