[Python-Dev] External Package Maintenance

"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Tue Jun 13 01:49:32 CEST 2006

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> This should definitely be explained to authors who are donating
> libraries to the stdlib, because from my perspective it seemed to me
> that I was graciously volunteering to be responsible for *all* the work
> related to wsgiref.

It's not only about python-wide changes. It is also for regular error
corrections: whenever I commit a bug fix that somebody contributed, I
now have to understand the code, and the bug, and the fix. Under PEP
360, I have to do all of these, *plus* checking PEP 360 to determine
whether I will step on somebodies' toes. I also have to consult PEP 291,
of course, to find out whether the code has additional compatibility

I currently mostly manage to do this all because I remember (in brain)
whether something is externally maintained, and how to proceed in this
case. However, I can see how this doesn't scale.

So ideally, I would like to see the external maintainers state "we can
deal with occasional breakage arising from somebody forgetting the
procedures". This would scale, as it would put the responsibility
for the code on the shoulders of the maintainer. It appears that Thomas
Heller says this would work for him, and it worked for bsddb and


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list