Status of PyYAML - Re: Proposal for closing ticket pyyaml/issue/11
Hi Stefan, I'm cross-posting this to the python-ideas list. Regarding the status of PyYAML -- after 10 releases over 6 years, I consider it stable enough so that I don't need to pay much attention to it anymore. I'm migrating the project, including the issues database, from Trac to Bitbucket, but haven't finished it yet since Bitbucket added issues import/export API only a month ago and I didn't have a change to look at it. On discussion on python-ideas, I looked through it, but I'm not sure how I could contribute. Does it make sense to have YAML support in stdlib? Definitely, the format is popular enough and has some unique advantages over other options. But to the next question, how it should be done, I don't have a good answer. Would you include PyYAML+libyaml directly into the stdlib? It's a big chunk of C, Python and Pyrex/Cython code and I doubt core developers are willing to accept it. Besides, PyYAML API was designed for Python 2.3 and may feel outdated for Python 3.5. So you need to rewrite low-level parsing and emitting code to C+Python API and design a new high-level extension API, but who's going to do all this work? Thanks, Kirill On 06/05/2013 01:43 AM, Stefan Drees wrote:
Hi Kirill,
as we have interesting discussions w.r.t. YAML and the python stdlib, I thought you might be interested to know.
Vinay Sajip was so nice, as to point to an open ticket at [1] as sample and asked (in other words) "if this project is alive and well" ;-) (he also noted that there """are 65 open issues of type "defect" relating to PyYAML, and 15 such relating to libyaml.""" c.f. [2]
As it seems to be unclear how and where issues are handled for PyYAML and libyaml (TRAC on pyyaml.org or bitbucket repo?) I spent some minutes to remove the common fairy tale that "arbitrary JSON (with unique keys) is automatic correctly parseable YAML" and wrote[3].
Maybe you can use some of the wording at [3], to close the ticket and also others in relation to this misconception, that YAML = JSON and unique keys.
I personally would really enjoy, if you could participate in these discussions on python-ideas as it would certainly be beneficial, to read your opinions and advice based on your experiences.
Please consider it at least. It would be great!
References:
[1]: https://bitbucket.org/xi/pyyaml/issue/11/valid-json-not-being-loaded [2]: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-June/021088.html [3]: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-June/021095.html
All the best, Stefan.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Kirill Simonov <xi@resolvent.net> wrote:
Hi Stefan,
I'm cross-posting this to the python-ideas list.
Regarding the status of PyYAML -- after 10 releases over 6 years, I consider it stable enough so that I don't need to pay much attention to it anymore. I'm migrating the project, including the issues database, from Trac to Bitbucket, but haven't finished it yet since Bitbucket added issues import/export API only a month ago and I didn't have a change to look at it.
On discussion on python-ideas, I looked through it, but I'm not sure how I could contribute. Does it make sense to have YAML support in stdlib? Definitely, the format is popular enough and has some unique advantages over other options.
But to the next question, how it should be done, I don't have a good answer. Would you include PyYAML+libyaml directly into the stdlib? It's a big chunk of C, Python and Pyrex/Cython code and I doubt core developers are willing to accept it. Besides, PyYAML API was designed for Python 2.3 and may feel outdated for Python 3.5. So you need to rewrite low-level parsing and emitting code to C+Python API and design a new high-level extension API, but who's going to do all this work?
And that's the trick. =) If PyYAML was pulled into the stdlib presumably it would be you, Kirill. And development would need to move to python-dev and not be externally maintained (although you can make external releases). We also don't use Cython in Python itself so that could would not get pulled in. The basic requirements are outlined at http://docs.python.org/devguide/stdlibchanges.html -Brett
Thanks, Kirill
On 06/05/2013 01:43 AM, Stefan Drees wrote:
Hi Kirill,
as we have interesting discussions w.r.t. YAML and the python stdlib, I thought you might be interested to know.
Vinay Sajip was so nice, as to point to an open ticket at [1] as sample and asked (in other words) "if this project is alive and well" ;-) (he also noted that there """are 65 open issues of type "defect" relating to PyYAML, and 15 such relating to libyaml.""" c.f. [2]
As it seems to be unclear how and where issues are handled for PyYAML and libyaml (TRAC on pyyaml.org or bitbucket repo?) I spent some minutes to remove the common fairy tale that "arbitrary JSON (with unique keys) is automatic correctly parseable YAML" and wrote[3].
Maybe you can use some of the wording at [3], to close the ticket and also others in relation to this misconception, that YAML = JSON and unique keys.
I personally would really enjoy, if you could participate in these discussions on python-ideas as it would certainly be beneficial, to read your opinions and advice based on your experiences.
Please consider it at least. It would be great!
References:
[1]: https://bitbucket.org/xi/**pyyaml/issue/11/valid-json-** not-being-loaded<https://bitbucket.org/xi/pyyaml/issue/11/valid-json-not-being-loaded> [2]: http://mail.python.org/**pipermail/python-ideas/2013-** June/021088.html<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-June/021088.html> [3]: http://mail.python.org/**pipermail/python-ideas/2013-** June/021095.html<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-June/021095.html>
All the best, Stefan.
______________________________**_________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/**mailman/listinfo/python-ideas<http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas>
participants (2)
-
Brett Cannon -
Kirill Simonov