PEP announcements, and summaries
One thing about the reaction to the 2.1 alphas is that many people seem *surprised* by some of the changes, even though PEPs have been written, discussed, and mentioned in python-dev summaries. Maybe the PEPs and their status need to be given higher visibility; I'd suggest sending a brief note of status changes (new draft PEPs, acceptance, rejection) to comp.lang.python.announce.
Also, I'm wondering if it's worth continuing the python-dev summaries, because, while they get a bunch of hits on news sites such as Linux Today and may be good PR, I'm not sure that they actually help Python development. They're supposed to let people offer timely comments on python-dev discussions while it's still early enough to do some good, but that doesn't seem to happen; I don't see python-dev postings that began with something like "The last summary mentioned you were talking about X. I use X a lot, and here's what I think: ...". Is anything much lost if the summaries cease?
--amk
Andrew Kuchling akuchlin@mems-exchange.org:
Is anything much lost if the summaries cease?
I think not, but others may differ.
Andrew Kuchling wrote:
One thing about the reaction to the 2.1 alphas is that many people seem *surprised* by some of the changes, even though PEPs have been written, discussed, and mentioned in python-dev summaries. Maybe the PEPs and their status need to be given higher visibility; I'd suggest sending a brief note of status changes (new draft PEPs, acceptance, rejection) to comp.lang.python.announce.
Also, I'm wondering if it's worth continuing the python-dev summaries, because, while they get a bunch of hits on news sites such as Linux Today and may be good PR, I'm not sure that they actually help Python development. They're supposed to let people offer timely comments on python-dev discussions while it's still early enough to do some good, but that doesn't seem to happen; I don't see python-dev postings that began with something like "The last summary mentioned you were talking about X. I use X a lot, and here's what I think: ...". Is anything much lost if the summaries cease?
I think that the Python community would lose some touch with the Python development process and there are currently no other clearly visible resources which a Python user can link to unless he or she happens to know of the existence of python-dev.
Some things which could be done to improve this:
* add a link to the python-dev archive directly from www.python.org
* summarize the development process somewhere on python.org and add a link "development" to the page titles
* fix the "community" link to point to a page which provides links to all the community tools available for Python on the web, e.g. Starship, Parnassus, SF-tools, FAQTS, etc.
* add a section "devtools" which points programmers to existing Python programming tools such as IDLE, PythonWare, Wing IDE, BlackAdder, etc.
And while I'm at it :)
* add a section "applications" to produce some more awareness that Python is being used in real life applications
* some kind of self-maintained projects page would also be a nice thing to have, e.g. a Wiki-style reference to projects seeking volunteers to help; this could also be referenced in the community section
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 07:32:00PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Some things which could be done to improve this:
- add a link to the python-dev archive directly from www.python.org
- summarize the development process somewhere on python.org and
add a link "development" to the page titles
We do need a set of "Hacker's Guide to Python Development" Web pages to collect that sort of thing; I have some small pieces of such a thing, written long ago and never released, but they'd need to be updated and finished off.
And while I'm at it, too, I'd like to suggest that, since python-dev seems to be getting out of touch with the larger Python community, after 2.1final, rather than immediately leaping back into language hacking, we should work on bringing the public face of the community up to date:
* Pry python.org out of CNRI's cold dead hands, and begin maintaining it again.
* Start moving on the Catalog-SIG again (yes, I know this is my task)
* Work on the Batteries Included proposals & required infrastructure
* Try doing some PR for 2.1.
--amk
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 07:32:00PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Some things which could be done to improve this:
- add a link to the python-dev archive directly from www.python.org
- summarize the development process somewhere on python.org and
add a link "development" to the page titles
Andrew:
We do need a set of "Hacker's Guide to Python Development" Web pages to collect that sort of thing; I have some small pieces of such a thing, written long ago and never released, but they'd need to be updated and finished off.
And while I'm at it, too, I'd like to suggest that, since python-dev seems to be getting out of touch with the larger Python community, after 2.1final, rather than immediately leaping back into language hacking, we should work on bringing the public face of the community up to date:
- Pry python.org out of CNRI's cold dead hands, and begin maintaining it again.
Agreed. I am getting together with some folks at Digital Creations this week to get started with a Zope-based python.org website (to be run at new.python.org for now). This will be run somewhat like zope.org, i.e. members can post their own contents in their home directory, and after review such items can be linked directly from the home page, or something like that. The software to be used is DC's brand new Content Management Framework (announced in a press conference last Thursday; I can't find anything on the web yet).
(Hmm, I wonder if we could run this on starship.python.net instead? That machine probably has more spare cycles.)
Start moving on the Catalog-SIG again (yes, I know this is my task)
Work on the Batteries Included proposals & required infrastructure
Try doing some PR for 2.1.
Joya Subudhi of Foretec has been doing a lot of Python PR work -- she arranged about a dozen press interviews for me last week at LinuxWorld Expo. She can undoubtedly do a good job of pushing the 2.1 announcement into the world, once we've released it.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 02:37:28PM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote:
(Hmm, I wonder if we could run this on starship.python.net instead? That machine probably has more spare cycles.)
Hmm.... eggs... basket... spam... ham... Given starships's track record I'd hesitate before running it on that :-) But then, 5 years of system administration has made me a highly superstitious person.
I-still-boot-old-SCSI-tape-libraries-with-dead-chickens-in-reach-ly y'rs
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Andrew Kuchling akuchlin@cnri.reston.va.us wrote:
- Try doing some PR for 2.1.
OK, no one is going to enjoy hearing this, and I know this has been hashed to death, but the major stumbling block for PR for 2.0 was GPL-compat. I know everyone is doing their best to resolve this problem, and my heart felt thanks to them for doing this thankless job.
Mostly, PR for 2.1 consists of writing our code using the 2.1 wonderful constructs (os.spawnv, for example, which is now x-p). I know I'd do that more easily if I knew 'apt-get install python' would let people use my code.
Andrew Kuchling writes:
- Work on the Batteries Included proposals & required infrastructure
I'd certainly like to see some machinery that allows us to incorporate arbitrary distutils-based packages in Python source and binary distributions and have them built, tested, and installed alongside the interpreter core. I think this would be the right approach to deal with many components, including the XML and curses components.
-Fred
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, "Fred L. Drake, Jr." fdrake@acm.org wrote:
I'd certainly like to see some machinery that allows us to incorporate arbitrary distutils-based packages in Python source and binary distributions and have them built, tested, and installed alongside the interpreter core. I think this would be the right approach to deal with many components, including the XML and curses components.
You can take a look at PEP-0206. I'd appreciate any feedback! (And of course, come to the DevDay session)
"Fred L. Drake, Jr." wrote:
Andrew Kuchling writes:
- Work on the Batteries Included proposals & required infrastructure
I'd certainly like to see some machinery that allows us to incorporate arbitrary distutils-based packages in Python source and binary distributions and have them built, tested, and installed alongside the interpreter core. I think this would be the right approach to deal with many components, including the XML and curses components.
Good idea... but then I've made the experience that different tools need different distutils command interfaces, e.g. my mx tools will use customized commands which provide extra functionality (e.g. some auto-configuration code) which is not present in the standard distutils distro.
As a result we will have a common interface point (setup.py), but not necessarily the same commands and/or options.
Still, this situation is already *much* better than having different install mechanisms altogether.
Andrew> Is anything much lost if the summaries cease?
Like Eric said, probably not. Still, before tossing them you might post a note to c.l.py.a that is essentially what you wrote and warn that if people don't chime in with some valid feedback, they will stop.
Skip
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001, Andrew Kuchling akuchlin@mems-exchange.org wrote:
One thing about the reaction to the 2.1 alphas is that many people seem *surprised* by some of the changes, even though PEPs have been written, discussed, and mentioned in python-dev summaries. Maybe the PEPs and their status need to be given higher visibility; I'd suggest sending a brief note of status changes (new draft PEPs, acceptance, rejection) to comp.lang.python.announce.
I'm +1 on that. c.l.p.a isn't really a high-traffic group, and this would add negligible traffic in any case. Probably more important then stuff I approve daily.
Also, I'm wondering if it's worth continuing the python-dev summaries, because, while they get a bunch of hits on news sites such as Linux Today and may be good PR, I'm not sure that they actually help Python development. They're supposed to let people offer timely comments on python-dev discussions while it's still early enough to do some good, but that doesn't seem to happen; I don't see python-dev postings that began with something like "The last summary mentioned you were talking about X. I use X a lot, and here's what I think: ...". Is anything much lost if the summaries cease?
One note: if you're asking for lack of time, I can help: I'm doing the Python-URL! summaries for a few weeks now, and I've gotten some practice. FWIW, I think they are excellent. Maybe crosspost to c.l.py too, so it can get discussed on the group more easily?
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:32:31PM -0500, Andrew Kuchling wrote:
One thing about the reaction to the 2.1 alphas is that many people seem *surprised* by some of the changes, even though PEPs have been written, discussed, and mentioned in python-dev summaries. Maybe the PEPs and their status need to be given higher visibility; I'd suggest sending a brief note of status changes (new draft PEPs, acceptance, rejection) to comp.lang.python.announce.
Or, (wait, wait) maybe, (don't shoot me) we should change the python-dev construct (nono, wait, wait!) - that is, instead of it being a write-only list with readable archives, have it be a list completely open for subscription, but with post access to a limited number of people (the current subscribers.) I know of at least two people who want to read python-dev, but not by starting up netscape every day. (One of them already tried subscribing to python-dev once ;) Or perhaps just digests, though I don't really see the benifit of that (or of the current approach, really.) It's just much easier to keep up and comment on features if it arrives in your mailbox every day.
(Besides, it would prompt Barry to write easy ways to manage such list of posters, which is slightly lacking in Mailman right now <wink> <wink>)
Ok-*now*-you-can-shoot-me-ly y'rs
participants (10)
-
Andrew Kuchling -
Andrew Kuchling -
Eric S. Raymond -
Fred L. Drake, Jr. -
Fredrik Lundh -
Guido van Rossum -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Moshe Zadka -
Skip Montanaro -
Thomas Wouters