In the age of wikis and mega-collaboration-web-toys, we're talking about a text file? Of course having 2 different information sources sounds wacky, but somehow somewhere this responsibility matrix should be googlable and colourful. Or at least linked ie - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Round_Table#List_of_Knights
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:39 AM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com>wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 at 01:01, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > >> That would be a third source of info about who maintains what. >> >> If this file is created it should maybe override and cover what PEP >> 360 and PEP 291 provides >> >> - some modules/packages backward compatibility infos >> > > I think this (PEP 291) should be referenced in the header of the file, > since it would help inform various decisions. What it lists is > something different from what maintainers.txt is proposed to list, > since the PEP is talking about the maintenance of the non-stdlib > versions of those modules. (Granted, that's relevant for the > maintenance of the stdlib version, but not conclusive.) > > - a list of externally maintained packages >> > > Antoine should hate this one (PEP 360) :) And it is, essentially, a > deprecated PEP. (Which opens the question of what we should do about > the modules it lists...though apparently we can now remove optik/optparse > from it.) > > (some of these info are a bit outdated though) >> > > Indeed. > > --David > _______________________________________________ > stdlib-sig mailing list > stdlib-sig@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig > >
_______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
