[Python-Dev] backporting stdlib 2.7.x from pypy to cpython

[Eric Snow]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>> But what guarantee do you have that (a) the right people sign up for
>> the new list, and (b) topics are correctly brought up there instead of
>> on python-dev? I agree that python-dev is turning into a firehose, but
>> I am reluctant to create backwaters where people might arrive at what
>> they think is a consensus only because the important opinions aren't
>> represented there.
>
> If that's a concern, I'd be happy to limit the use of the new list to
> "Input from other implementations needed on python-dev thread <x>".
>
> At the moment, it's a PITA to chase other implementations to get
> confirmation that they can cope with a change we're considering, so
> I'd like confirmation that either:
>
> 1. Asking on python-dev is considered adequate. If an implementation
> wants to be consulted on changes, one or more of their developers
> *must* follow python-dev sufficiently closely that they don't miss
> cross-VM compatibility questions. (My concern is that this isn't
> reliable - we know from experience that other VMs can miss such
> questions when they're mixed in with the rest of the python-dev
> traffic)
> 2. As 1, but we adopt a subject line convention to make it easier to
> filter out general python-dev traffic for those that are just
> interested in cross-vm questions
> 3. Create a separate list for cross-VM discussions, *including*
> discussions that aren't directly relevant to Python-the-language or
> CPython-the-reference-interpreter (e.g. collaborating on a shared
> standard library fork). python-dev threads may be advertised on the
> new list if cross-VM feedback is considered particularly necessary.
>
> As Brett pointed out, it's similar to the resurrection of import-sig -
> we know that decisions aren't final until they're resolved on
> python-dev, but it also means we're not flooding python-dev with
> interminable arcane discussions on import system internals.

+1

While soliciting feedback on PEP 421 (sys.implementation), the first
option got me nearly no responses from the other major Python
implementations.  In the end, I tracked down which would be the
appropriate mailing lists for PyPy, Jython, and IronPython, and
directly wrote to them, which seemed a less than optimal approach.  It
also means that I left out any other interested parties.  As well, I'm
still not positive I wrote to the best lists for those
implementations.

Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
would have been the most effective by far.  Of course, the key thing
is how closely the various implementors would follow the new list.
Only they could say, though Frank Wierzbicki seemed positive about it.

FWIW, I also like Nick's idea of "redirecting" to ongoing python-dev
threads and his comparison of the proposed new list to import-sig.

-eric