anacrolix at gmail
Mar 13, 2012, 8:31 PM
Post #27 of 41
On Mar 14, 2012 5:27 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
Re: Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives
[In reply to]
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:16:40 -0700
> Guido van Rossum <guido [at] python> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy [at] udel> wrote:
> > > Authors of separately maintained packages are, from our viewpoint, as
> > > eligible to help with tracker issues as anyone else, even while they
> > > continue work on their external package. Some of them are more likely
> > > most contributors to have the knowledge needed for some particular
> > This is a good idea. I was chatting w. Senthil this morning about
> > adding improvements to urllib/request.py based upon ideas from
> > urllib3, requests, httplib2 (?), and we came to the conclusion that it
> > might be a good idea to let those packages' authors review the
> > proposed stdlib improvements.
> We don't have any provisions against reviewal by third-party
> developers already. I think the main problem (for us, of course) is that
> these people generally aren't interested enough to really dive in
> stdlib patches and proposals.
> For example, for the ssl module, I have sometimes tried to involve
> authors of third-party packages such as pyOpenSSL (or, IIRC, M2Crypto),
> but I got very little or no reviewing.
Rather than indicating apathy on the party of third party developers, this
might be a sign that core Python is unapproachable or not worth the effort.
For instance I have several one line patches languishing, I can't imagine
how disappointing it would be to have significantly larger patches ignored,
but it happens.