[Python-Dev] 3.x as the official release

[Jesse Noller]

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:
>> ...snip...
>>>> 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
> samples.
>

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.

jesse