Le 17/01/2011 23:41, Nick Coghlan a écrit : > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: >> [...] >> Also, I see no need to put the maintainers list in the dev guide, >> actually. > > Every time I see someone syncing the version-independent maintainers > list across branches a little alarm bell goes off in my head to say > that file should be somewhere other than the main source tree. > > It's also quite possible that once the maintainer list is part of the > dev guide, triagers will start using the official copy on python.org > and the search function in their web browser rather than running grep > over a source checkout. +1 to moving maintainers.rst to the devguide, a wiki page (I’m volunteering to monitor that page for vandalism), or make it somehow part of the bug tracker. Let’s also take the opportunity to rename it to “experts”, following R. David Murray: “Any module without a listed maintainer is maintained by the community as a whole [...] I think perhaps the name chosen for the file was unfortunate. I view it more as the 'experts' file, rather than the maintainers file, though in some cases the expert is indeed the principle maintainer of the module (such as Vinay for logging).” Bonus question: if we remove maintainers.rst from py3k, what do we do in 3.1 and 2.7? I’d favor removing them over keeping outdated versions. Regards
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