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

[DrKJam]

2009/9/28 Peter Moody <peter at hda3.com>

> [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.
>
>
Sure, I'm happy to volunteer and help out. Let's have a good hard look at
all this and see what we can come up with.


> > 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/<http://www.python.org/%7Eguido/>
> )
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20090928/bc7e6ef2/attachment.htm>