[Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:16:40 -0700
Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> > Authors of separately maintained packages are, from our viewpoint, as
> > eligible to help with tracker issues as anyone else, even while they
> > continue work on their external package. Some of them are more likely than
> > most contributors to have the knowledge needed for some particular issues.
> 
> This is a good idea. I was chatting w. Senthil this morning about
> adding improvements to urllib/request.py based upon ideas from
> urllib3, requests, httplib2 (?), and we came to the conclusion that it
> might be a good idea to let those packages' authors review the
> proposed stdlib improvements.

We don't have any provisions against reviewal by third-party
developers already. I think the main problem (for us, of course) is that
these people generally aren't interested enough to really dive in
stdlib patches and proposals.

For example, for the ssl module, I have sometimes tried to involve
authors of third-party packages such as pyOpenSSL (or, IIRC, M2Crypto),
but I got very little or no reviewing.

Regards

Antoine.