On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:41 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 02:39 am, email@example.com wrote:
I'm disappointed in the process -- it's as if nobody really reviewed the API until it was released with rc1, and this despite there being a significant discussion about its inclusion and alternatives months ago. (Don't look at me -- I wouldn't recognize a netmask if it bit me in the behind, and I can honestly say that I don't know whether /8 means to look only at the first 8 bits or whether it means to mask off the last 8 bits.)
I hope we can learn from this.
As he pointed out to Martin, Jean-Paul voiced objections several months ago which are similar to the ones which are now being discussed. To be fair, he didn't unambiguously say "... and therefore don't include this library"; he simply suggested that netaddr was superior in some ways and that perhaps some documentation could illuminate why ipaddr was better.
The thing that stands out about the earlier tracker/mailing list discussions is how very few people affirmatively wanted ipaddr added to the standard library. Most people thought it sounded ok in principle, didn't care, or thought it was not a great idea but didn't feel like arguing about it.