RetroSearch Browse

Sun May 26 05:46:16 EDT 2019 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-May/157713.html

On Fri, 24 May 2019 09:54:05 -0700
Steve Dower <steve.dower at python.org> wrote:
> 
> All in all, this is basically where we are today, with the exception 
> that we haven't officially said that we no longer support these modules. 
> PEP 594 is this official statement, and our usual process for things we 
> don't support is to remove them in two versions time. It doesn't have to 
> be so controversial - either the people who are saying "we rely on this" 
> are also willing to help us maintain them, or they're not. And if 
> they're not, they clearly don't rely on it (or realize the cost of 
> relying on volunteer-maintained software).

This is an absurd statement.  You can rely on something without having
the time or competence required to maintain it yourself.  Division of
labour exists for a reason.

Obviously this doesn't mean that the CPython development team must
absorb any development activity that may be useful to the greater
public.  But widely-used software packages such as a Python and its
stdlib have a tremendous enabling effect.

Regards

Antoine.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-May/157713.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 594 - a proposal for unmaintained modules