On Wed May 14 2014 at 11:02:50 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 11:31:15 -0300, "Joao S. O. Bueno" <jsbueno@python.org.br> wrote:
> +1 for an official policy that comes with a "permanent maintainer for
> this platform required"  as part of the list
> of requisites.
>   js
>  -><-
> On 14 May 2014 11:20, Brett Cannon <bcannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Over the past week or so there have been 2 patches to add support for
> > various UNIX OSs. Now I thought we had stopped trying to add new esoteric
> > OSs (e.g. I had never heard of MirOS until the patch for it came in), but I
> > can't find a PEP that spells out what it takes to get a platform supported
> > (http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0011/ is about removing platforms,
> > not keeping them or adding them unless you are re-adding one which
> > apparently just takes a volunteer).
> >
> > Do we want an official policy written down in a PEP (yes, I can write it)?
> > Should I keep closing these patches and saying that we are not adding
> > support for new operating systems and be hand-wavy about it?

In addition to a maintainer (who I think doesn't have to be a committer,
though that would be ideal), I think a maintained buildbot should be a
requirement for formal support.

I would think someone how is/would be a core dev and a *stable* buildbot are requirements.