[Python-Dev] 3.x as the official release
jnoller at gmail.com
Wed Sep 15 19:09:58 CEST 2010
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:35, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>>>> The one area I have concerns about is the state of WSGI and other
>>>> web-oriented modules. These issues have been brought up by Armin and
>>>> others, but given a lack of a clear path forward (bugs, peps, etc), I
>>>> don't think it's fair to use it as a measurement of overall quality.
>>> The whole WSGI situation is not going to get cleared up (from my
>>> understanding) until someone flat-out declares a winner in the whole
>>> str/bytes argument that keeps coming up. I think it might be time to
>>> have a PEP or two on this and use our new PEP dictator procedure to
>>> settle this so it stops dragging on (unless it has been miraculously
>>> settled and I am just unaware of it).
>> Yup, and I spoke with some people with horses in that race at
>> Djangocon. The important thing is that the PEP(s) and suggestion come
>> from the people with the most experience in that domain.
> Yes. They have to be people who are not only stakeholders but people
> who actively use and develop large applications using WSGI.
>> That's why I
>> said we (in the "committer" sense) need a clear path of things we need
>> to change or fix - without it we're just stabbing in the dark.
> So, who do we get to write the PEP(s)? Should we ask the web-sig to
> choose a person or two and then once we have the PEPs we designate PEP
> dictators? Either way we should probably set a deadline to get the
> PEPs in else the SIG might argue too long where to go look at paint
At Djangocon, I was told this is being discussed amongst people on
web-sig, and I encouraged a few people to get involved. I don't think
this is something we can set a deadline for (and I don't know that
it's *our* place), especially given a lack of people to actually write
the code in some cases. In at least one case, I've encouraged them to
contact the PSF with a proposal in case funding is needed (such as
your own, or Jean-Paul's work).
Fundamentally; I would gladly hold up 3.2 (just my opinion) for the
needed fixes to the standard lib I've heard discussed (once we have
bugs and/or patches) but that requires the decisions to be made, and I
don't think the people here are the ones to make the decisions - so we
can only state the release date of 3.2 and the subsequent releases and
let the people who know infinitely more about the nuances then us
decide on it.
More information about the Python-Dev