[Python-Dev] PEP 3144 review, and the inclusion process
peter at hda3.com
Mon Sep 28 01:17:48 CEST 2009
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> Peter Moody <peter <at> hda3.com> writes:
>> this is "less useful (strictly removing functionality)" and is an
>> example of what I explicitly said I was not going to do with ipaddr.
> (please note the conditional wording here) Assuming that a significant number of
> people agree that there is a design problem, if you don't want to make the
> necessary changes, then I don't see a reason why ipaddr would enter the stdlib.
I've never said otherwise. In fact, from an email last night, "If what
the community requires is the library you've described, then ipaddr is
not that library." The changes *you* require make ipaddr significantly
less useful to me. I'm not prepared to make those changes in an
attempt seek acceptance to the stdlib, especially if the stdlib is in
such flux that I'll get to do this again in 18 months.
> The functionality (IP address handling) hasn't really seen a huge demand.
then no one would be the worse off if I don't make those suggested changes.
> On stdlib-sig recently, a number of people complained that our criteria for
> including existing libraries in the stdlib should be higher (they complained
> about the quality of some existing modules, including optparse, which by the way
> prompted the current proposal to get argparse in the stdlib). I think this PEP
> is a good moment to judge and decide how demanding or tolerant we (and
> especially the complainers ;-)) want to be.
Sounds like design by committee to satisfy the squeakiest wheel. I'm
trying, but I can't think of anything worse.
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-dev%40hda3.com
More information about the Python-Dev