On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:04:33 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > > > I'm not being tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic. My question was > serious -- > if there is a moratorium, is there any reason to bother > submitting > patches for functional changes to built-ins? > > Yes. Python is open source. Private and public forks are possible > and (at least in principle) encouraged where the core project decides > that the proposed changes are inappropriate (or should be deferred, > as here). Nevertheless, isn't the core Python project the obvious > common point of contact for sharing such ideas, even if there is a > moratorium on the code base itself? No. It's not obvious to me that the CPython tracker is the right place for patches for implementations that aren't for CPython. It's not even obvious that there would be a common point of contact for private and public forks, let alone that it would be CPython's tracker. There are, by my count, 14 active and defunct implementations of Python to date, apart from CPython itself. How many of them currently use the CPython tracker to share patches? If the answer is "None", why would you expect future implementations and forks to be any different? -- Steven D'Aprano
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