On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2016 at 17:47, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
It will likely get decided as part of the build system PEP, whenever that gets picked up again.
Yes, but on 15th March (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2016-March/028457.html) Robert posted
Just to set expectations: this whole process seems stalled to me; I'm going to context switch and focus on things that can move forward. Someone please ping me when its relevant to put effort in again :).
And I think that's right. The whole build system PEP issue appears stalled from a lack of someone willing (or with the time) to make a call on the approach we take.
As far as I'm aware, the decision remains with Nick. With the possible exception of Donald's proposal (which AFAIK never got formally published as a PEP) everything that can be said on the other proposals has been said, and the remaining differences are ones of choice of approach rather than anything affecting capabilities. (Robert's message at https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2016-March/028437.html summarised the state of the 3 proposals at the time).
I think this is something that should be resolved - we don't appear to be gaining anything by waiting, and until we have a decision on the approach that's being taken, we aren't going to get anyone writing code for their preferred option.
Nick - do you have the time to pick this up? Or does it need someone to step up as BDFL-delegate? Robert, Nathaniel, do you have time to spend on a final round of discussion on this, on the assumption that the goal will be a final decision at the end of it? Donald, do you have the time and interest to complete and publish your proposal?
Paul
I was following that PEP and going to implement it in Twine for the PyPA. If it would help, I can help Nick with this process. I read both PEPs a while ago and I think updates have been made so I'd need to read them again, but I can probably make some time for this. -- Ian