On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
geremy condra writes: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
> > The core devs' time will be saved by ignoring the sandbox (other than > > their own features),
> Until a feature because quite mature, yes- afterwards, no. That's > the point of keeping it separate.
I see what you're saying, my assessment is that it will not be as effective as you think. Your assessment is different. Only way to prove it one way or the other is to try it.
I suggest we do that then. I'd appreciate input on how to structure it- the CGI idea (I believe it was yours?) seems to me to be the best on the table right now, but I'd like to hear contrary points of view.
> Don't assume that the only people with the experience and knowledge > to implement [a language change] are part of the core dev group- > especially a couple of years from now.
I don't make that assumption, it's an empirical observation of current conditions, backed up by the observation that new people have been gaining committer status regularly over the time I've watched Python-Dev -- if you've got the Right Stuff, there are few barriers to joining the core. I agree with you that they won't be the *same* people that are around today, but they will most likely be in the core.
If they're in core, so be it- I'm fine with that. But especially as the language's user base gets larger I suspect we're likely to see proposals that reflect a pretty diverse range of views on what Python should look like. Python-dev isn't the right place for a lot of those, especially while under the moratorium, but we still ignore them at our peril. The sandbox gives people a place to experiment with possible future Pythons in a way thats low-impact on the parts of the community that aren't interested in it. We disagree on how big the interested group is and who it contains, but my vote (for whatever its worth) is that we should find out. Geremy Condra