On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 16:39, 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.)
The people who brought them in are the experts for those modules so just list them as such. -Brett _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
