On Mon, 05 Feb 2001, Andrew Kuchling <akuchlin@mems-exchange.org> wrote: > One thing about the reaction to the 2.1 alphas is that many people > seem *surprised* by some of the changes, even though PEPs have been > written, discussed, and mentioned in python-dev summaries. Maybe the > PEPs and their status need to be given higher visibility; I'd suggest > sending a brief note of status changes (new draft PEPs, acceptance, > rejection) to comp.lang.python.announce. I'm +1 on that. c.l.p.a isn't really a high-traffic group, and this would add negligible traffic in any case. Probably more important then stuff I approve daily. > Also, I'm wondering if it's worth continuing the python-dev summaries, > because, while they get a bunch of hits on news sites such as Linux > Today and may be good PR, I'm not sure that they actually help Python > development. They're supposed to let people offer timely comments on > python-dev discussions while it's still early enough to do some good, > but that doesn't seem to happen; I don't see python-dev postings that > began with something like "The last summary mentioned you were talking > about X. I use X a lot, and here's what I think: ...". Is anything > much lost if the summaries cease? One note: if you're asking for lack of time, I can help: I'm doing the Python-URL! summaries for a few weeks now, and I've gotten some practice. FWIW, I think they are excellent. Maybe crosspost to c.l.py too, so it can get discussed on the group more easily? -- Moshe Zadka <sig@zadka.site.co.il> This is a signature anti-virus. Please stop the spread of signature viruses! Fingerprint: 4BD1 7705 EEC0 260A 7F21 4817 C7FC A636 46D0 1BD6
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4