On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Paul Moore<p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/7/6 Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com>: >> why can't we just go ahead and continue the work as we started with PEP 376, >> introducing your work on PEP 302-like behavior. >> >> Then if we get a consensus on this PEP and introduce it in 2.7/3.2, >> setuptools will have to follow this consensus. > > Essentially, because when I ask questions, responses along the lines > of "you have to do it like X because setuptools does that" come back, > and (not being a setuptools user) I can't tell whether there's a valid > reason in there. Notice that we created PEP 376 in distutils-SIG with most of the valid reasons/use cases setuptools had, with the help of Phillip, before I brought it up again on python-dev. > > I'm uncomfortable assuming that setuptools experience is irrelevant, > but I can't distinguish between valid arguments and "setuptools can't > change" arguments. > > I need to write another email with a list of outstanding open issues. > If we can thrash them out *without* getting bogged down in setuptools > compatibility questions, then I think we can move forward again. I'll > do that this evening. Ok, I'll wait for your work to work on the PEP again then, and your push in the hg repo as well.
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