[Distutils] Expectations on how pip needs to change for Python 3.4

[Nick Coghlan]

On 14 July 2013 16:43, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:

> I just want to make sure that the boundaries between the governance of
> Python and pip are clearly defined and the expectations on both sides are
> laid out and agreed upon before it happens. And I think this raises a good
> point about how the two projects are going to interact.
>

Agreed, I think the boundaries need to be clear. If something installed by
default is *only* support code for a bundled application, then it should
either adhere to the standard library's backwards compatibility policies
(by appropriately marking private APIs as private), or else it should issue
a warning when imported by any other application. Either of those options
sounds good to me.

However, I consider expecting people to "just know" (or to look at
documentation to determine) which provided modules are public or private
without adhering to standard naming conventions or providing an explicit
runtime warning to be unreasonable.

(and yes, if "pip" goes down the runtime warning path, we should probably
look into providing a runtime warning for at least the "test" namespace and
possibly even the "idlelib" namespace, too)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130714/c941f729/attachment-0001.html>