Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:28:25PM -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Maybe I should stop posting PEPs to c.l.py, and tell them that if they want a say in the future of the language, they should subscribe to python-dev?
NOOOOOO!!!!! I don't want to have to start using a killfile on python-dev traffic to eliminate endless windy threads that never go anywhere.
I wasn't serious, but AFAICT /F was serious in his suggestion not to discuss my PEPs on c.l.py any more. I think the consequence of that would be that my PEPs only get discussed on python-dev. Then I see two possibilities: simply ignore the c.l.py crowd, or inviting them. I see serious downsides to each. So that means I'll have to face c.l.py every time I have a PEP, or stop writing PEPs. The latter sounds the most attractive -- I'll just check things in after a brief discussion on python-dev.
The latter pretty much defeats the whole purpose of PEPs.
I wouldn't want to get c.l.p style discussions on python-dev about PEPs, though. Why not setup a special PEP discussion list and then invite people from c.l.p over to it for additional insights ?
Regarding the subject line: don't know if it's just me, but I would like to see some of the conservative development style we had established a few years ago return in Python's development process. Some of the recent developments left me under the impression of the need to rush changes with no apparent reason (for rushing them).
-- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH