[stdlib-sig] MISC/maintainers.txt anyone?

[Yuvgoog Greenle]

In the age of wikis and mega-collaboration-web-toys, we're talking about a
text file? Of course having 2 different information sources sounds wacky,
but somehow somewhere this responsibility matrix should be googlable
and colourful.
Or at least linked ie -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Round_Table#List_of_Knights

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:39 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com>wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 at 01:01, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>
>> That would be a third source of info about who maintains what.
>>
>> If this file is created it should maybe override and cover what PEP
>> 360 and PEP 291 provides
>>
>> - some modules/packages backward compatibility infos
>>
>
> I think this (PEP 291) should be referenced in the header of the file,
> since it would help inform various decisions.  What it lists is
> something different from what maintainers.txt is proposed to list,
> since the PEP is talking about the maintenance of the non-stdlib
> versions of those modules.  (Granted, that's relevant for the
> maintenance of the stdlib version, but not conclusive.)
>
>  - a list of externally maintained packages
>>
>
> Antoine should hate this one (PEP 360) :)  And it is, essentially, a
> deprecated PEP.  (Which opens the question of what we should do about
> the modules it lists...though apparently we can now remove optik/optparse
> from it.)
>
>  (some of these info are a bit outdated though)
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
> --David
> _______________________________________________
> stdlib-sig mailing list
> stdlib-sig at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/stdlib-sig/attachments/20090916/96e6faee/attachment.htm>