[stdlib-sig] MISC/maintainers.txt anyone?
brett at python.org
Wed Sep 16 04:00:02 CEST 2009
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 16:24, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 at 19:02, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
>>> Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 18:38 -0400, R. David Murray a écrit :
>>>> Table (1) would list, I propose, three categories of people:
>>>> (a) 'official maintainer(s)', (b) experts, and (c) contributors.
>>> This is too complicated IMO.
>>> (a) + (b) is very sufficient and perhaps still not simple enough.
>>> I don't see any strong difference between maintainers and experts.
>>> As for casual contributors, I don't see any point in an exhaustive
>>> listing of them (which, depending on the module, may be very long and
>>> tedious and maintain).
>> but hey, if they're willing to write out all that info antoine ;)
>> I think Antoine has a good point here. Can we start shorter (and simpler)?
> OK, less work is fine by me.
> So instead of a full blown table, we have a file with two sections, and
> in each section we have a keyword (module name in the first section,
> expertise area in the second) followed by a list of tracker ids for
> people willing to make judgement calls on demand. Any lines that are
> blank means the person who doesn't feel qualified to make the judgement
> call gets to make it anyway :)
Sounds great to me!
> This would also mean that this file serves a completely different
> purpose than the PEPs, and is thus not redundant with them.
Right. And at some point we can write some code to mine the stdlib to
make sure the list is not missing any modules and to potentially
suggest maintainers for the blank modules.
And for sanity reasons you might want to only do this in py3k.
More information about the stdlib-sig