On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Nathaniel Smith firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 10:32 Antoine Pitrou <email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:49:32 -0800 Nathaniel Smith firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
There are a lot of challenges to switching to a "standard distribution" model. I'm not certain it's the best option. But what I like about it is that it could potentially reduce the conflict between what our different user groups need, instead of playing zero-sum tug-of-war every time this comes up.
There is no conflict between what different _user_ groups need. Including lz4 in the stdlib will not create a conflict for people who prefer numpy or cryptography.
Some users need as much functionality as possible in the standard download. Some users need the best quality, most up to date software. The current stdlib design makes it impossible to serve both sets of users well.
... and some users need a single, unambiguous choice for the "official, complete" distribution. Which need the current stdlib serves extremely well.
The conflict is less extreme for software that's stable, tightly scoped, and ubiquitous, like zlib or json; maybe lz4 is in the same place. But every time we talk about adding a new package, it turns into a flashpoint for these underlying tensions. I'm talking about the underlying issue, not about lz4 in particular.
Agreed, there are functional areas that are less foundational, and more open to debate. But historically, we've been very good at achieving a balance in those areas. In exploring alternatives, let's not lose sight of the fact that the stdlib has been a huge success, so we know we *can* deliver an extremely successful distribution based on that model, no matter how much it might trigger regular debates :-)