-On [20100220 13:04], "Martin v. Löwis" (martin@v.loewis.de) wrote:
The last commits by Fredrik to ElementTree in Python SVN that I can see are dated 2006-08-16. The last commits I can see to ElementTree at http://svn.effbot.python-hosting.com/ are dated 2006-07-05.
And?
[snip]
# Since you've effectively hijacked the library, and have created your # own fork that's not fully compatible with any formal release of the # upstream library, and am not contributing any patches back to # upstream, I suggest renaming it instead.
This may be politely phrased, but it seems that he is quite upset about these proposed changes.
I'd rather drop ElementTree from the standard library than fork it.
Maybe I am fully misunderstanding something here and I am also known for just bluntly stating things but: Isn't inclusion into the standard library under the assumption that maintenance will be performed on the code? With all due respect to Frederik, but if you add such a module to the base distribution and then ignore it for 3-4 years I personally have a hard time feeling your 'outrage' being justified for someone who is trying to fix outstanding issues in ElementTree. I also do not find your idea of dropping the module productive either Martin. Just dropping it for no other reason because someone cannot be bothered to act as a responsible maintainer just seems not useful for Python users at all. Especially since patches *are* available. If Frederik has problems with that he should have put a bit more effort into maintaining it in the first place. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B In this short time of promise, you're a memory...