On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:14:18AM -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 9/18/2014 2:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
However, now that CPython ships with pip by default, we may want to consider providing more explicit pointers to such "If you want more advanced functionality than the standard library provides" libraries.
Having used pip install a few times, I have begun to regard pip-installable packages as almost being extensions of the stdlib.
Sounds great, but let's not get carried away. Remember that many people, for reasons of company policy, cannot easily, or at all, install unapproved software. Whether for good or bad reasons, they're still stuck with what is in the std lib and nothing else.
Not just company policy -- it can be licencing issues. Or just general trust/paranoia -- installing packages from PyPI just because they look useful is not the most secure thing to do.
Another reason is sustainability -- I trust Python won't go unmaintained in a few years, and the few necessary breaking API changes will be well thought out and properly announced. For a PyPI project, there are no expectations. Even if it is well run (which would presumably be a requirement to land in a "stdlib++" list), you need to gauge an extra project's health, and keep up with an extra release note stream. I believe that's what Nick meant by "[doing] research".
Listing "stdlib++" projects would mean vouching for them, even if only implicitly. Indeed, let's not get too carried away.