[Python-Dev] PEP 3144 review, and the inclusion process

Peter Moody peter at hda3.com
Mon Sep 28 19:22:05 CEST 2009

[cc += david moss]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
>> Peter Moody <peter <at> hda3.com> writes:
>>> 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.
>> Well, then I'm not sure why we have a PEP at all.
>> If you don't want any significant changes and if you consider it to be *your*
>> library, ipaddr can remain a third-party package that interested people can
>> easily install (no pun ;-)) since AFAIK it's pure Python. It will also make
>> maintenance easier for you, while freeing us (core developers) from having to
>> bother about it in our daily development tasks.
>> At least that's what I would advocate right now - not sure about what others
>> think.
> I think Peter is pretty frustrated by the many attacks on "his"
> library. There are probably a number of different things going on
> simultaneous: Peter has been driven into the defense by attacks both
> reasonable and unreasonable, there have been misunderstandings all
> around, teasing out use cases (by both parties) has been a problem.
> Things might have gone differently if the PEP had started out with
> multiple authors. Maybe it's not too late to add one or more other
> interested parties to the PEP with the purpose of making the PEP more
> clearly the result of a consensus-gathering process.  Any volunteers?

David called me a little over a week ago and expressed an interest in
doing exactly this cross continent/ocean coordination has been a
little difficult thus far and I'm not certain what his feelings on
this are now.

> At the same time I don't think a complete reset of the proposed API is
> necessary.  I am rather more thinking of judicious API tweaks in order
> to cover some new use cases, without requiring a complete rewrite or
> destroying the usability of the proposal for Peter's original use
> cases. (In general I am pretty happy with the ipaddr code and API; it
> looks like what I would have done, but then I am blissfully unaware of
> some of the issues brought up in this thread.)
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-dev%40hda3.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list