[Python-Dev] PEP 453 (pip bootstrapping) ready for pronouncement?

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Sep 28 08:51:27 CEST 2013

On 28 Sep 2013 14:12, "Donald Stufft" <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:48 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org>
> > Nick Coghlan writes:
> >
> >> You have confirmed my belief that your model is incorrect.
> >
> > *shrug*  I just think the risks are higher than acknowledged (just
> > because you have so far failed to imagine a problem doesn't mean it
> > won't appear), and that the meta effect that "Even Guido admits that
> > Python 3 isn't ready for prime time" is perverse.  We know, even those
> > who have written blanket statements to that effect in this thread,
> > that that is false unless conditioned on specific applications.
> I haven't seen anyone say Python 3 isn't ready to be used, just that it
> makes more sense for beginners to use 2.7, and I think it does still.
> Porting libraries from 2.x to 3.x and translaing the existing corpus of
> tutorials, tips, posts, etc isn't a trivial task and one that beginners
> are unlikely to grok.
> >
> > I understand that the real motivation is that it's churlish to not
> > relieve the pain of users who have decided for their own good reasons
> > to use Python 2.7, and perverse to ignore the needs of the teachers
> > who are going to educate the users about Python 3 at the time they
> > consider appropriate.  But the meta-message *received* by the public
> > is not going to accurately reflect that motivation, and is not going
> > to be helpful in encouraging those who already *can* move to Python 3
> > to do so.
> >
> > Anyway, clearly this exception is heading for approval, and the PEP
> > with it.  I recommend that the "Feature addition in maintenance
> > releases" section be amended to read in its entirety:
> >
> >    The additions of the new module to the standard library in the
> >    maintenance releases of 2.7 and 3.3 were granted explicit
> >    exceptions to the rule "no new features in maintenance releases."
> >    These exceptions were explicitly discussed, and approved in
> >    consultation with the affected release managers, separately from
> >    the rest of the PEP.  They do not represent a change in policy,
> >    and must not be considered a precedent for other such exceptions.
> >
> > Just the facts, ma'am.  It's a bad idea to include bullshit about the
> > benefit-cost ratio, because it will be cited in future requests for
> > similar exceptions.  To the extent that people interpret this as a
> > forecast and support for a long life for Python 2.7, there is
> > substantial risk of such requests.
> Maybe my understanding of the PEP process is flawed, but isn't
> part of the point of it to codify the *reasons* for the decisions that
> were made? That's why they include information about dissenting
> opinions and such?
> I don't think it's dangerous to cite the reasons the decision was came
> to. Perhaps it can be toned down but I think it's useful to document
> the discussion. I've got a partially done update that tries to capture
> the dissenting opinions as well for completeness sake.

We'll put something in pointing out that accepting this change actually
makes it even *harder* to advocate for further feature additions in Python
2.7 maintenance releases as there is *zero* chance of backporting language
changes, and this PEP means library and builtin updates can easily be a pip
install away if someone is willing to create the backport and put it on
PyPI (Brandon Rhodes already created the "backports" namespace package as a
common home for such efforts, or there's the "2" suffix that has been used
in a couple of cases).


> >
> >
> > Footnotes:
> > [1]  I do it that way myself, always with the most recent Python 3,
> > but haven't yet gotten to the point of needing "pip" (use cases that
> > happen to be met by the stdlib).
> > _______________________________________________
> > Python-Dev mailing list
> > Python-Dev at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> > Unsubscribe:
> -----------------
> Donald Stufft
> PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130928/152955fa/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list