| Store | Cart

[Python-Dev] PEP 385: the eol-type issue

From: Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org>
Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:00:54 +0900
Mark Hammond writes:
 > On 6/08/2009 12:28 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:> > I think the implication is obvious.  There will be no good solution> > until Windows users develop it.  I don't see a good reason to wait for> > that.> My conclusion is different.  I'm not sure of the history of win32text, > but it most certainly is now squarely in the hands of Windows users. > Patches to win32text, or even general discussion is usually met with > silence, and when prodded, the response is "sorry - we don't use that - > it is a Windows problem."

Well, yes, it is a Windows problem.  And it will probably always be
that way, because for practical purposes, Windows users cannot
advocate their platform's infrastructure solutions for open source
projects: those solutions are proprietary.  On the flip side, in my
experience at least Windows users do not contribute much to this kind
of infrastructure initiative, undoubtedly due to the high cost of
acquiring familiarity with the usable options[1], and so have less
input into the process.

But that's a matter of certain costs that are built in to the nature
of a proprietary platform.  Somebody has to pay them, and I think it
should be the users of that platform.  Why should the rest of the
community subsidize that platform?

 > As a result, we end up in the position we are in now - win32text is > great in theory but doesn't work in practice, attempts to make it work > are met with indifference, and the "problem" stays squarely with Windows > users.

This is simply false AFAICS.  There was little participation on this
particular issue during PEP 374 that I can recall.  Now that it is
clearly an issue after all, it's still early in the PEP 385 process.
Martin has already picked up the ball on EOL support, and has carried
informal design pretty much to the goal line already ... all that's
left is the detailed design and the implementation, and there are
several people involved who will help develop the patch, all very
capable.  (Of course it's going to be easier said than done and there
are probably bumps in the road to a smooth workflow, but I do claim
that the process is working as well as you could expect.)

 > Hence my conclusion that the answer is for any such support to be > developed in conjunction with Windows users, [...]

Ahem.  Why not "(primarily) by Windows users"?

 > And on the flip-side, I accept we may migrate without the agreed> solution fully implemented - I'm happy to accept commitments about> what *will* be done even if it isn't a reality for a short while...

Make no mistake about it, EOL support is a tempest in a teapot
compared to the benefits to a large number of core developers in their
*personal* workspaces -- even if the project workflow doesn't change
at all.  That's what is driving this change.

Unless Windows users do it themselves, they are dependent on the good
will of the PEP 385 proponent and other volunteer contributors.  I
don't think "accepting commitments" is part of the game plan.

Footnotes: 
[1]  Eg, I was willing to participate in PEP 374 because I already
have a great interest in version control and use git daily.  Lots of
Unix users don't, and they didn't participate any more than most
Windows users did.

Recent Messages in this Thread
Dirkjan Ochtman Aug 03, 2009 10:41 am
Nick Coghlan Aug 04, 2009 09:20 am
Mark Hammond Aug 04, 2009 11:43 pm
Neil Hodgson Aug 05, 2009 12:44 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 07:35 am
Mark Hammond Aug 05, 2009 07:44 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 08:09 am
Paul Moore Aug 05, 2009 10:04 am
Dirkjan Ochtman Aug 05, 2009 10:14 am
Mark Hammond Aug 05, 2009 11:22 am
John Arbash Meinel Aug 05, 2009 02:58 pm
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 06:22 pm
Mark Hammond Aug 05, 2009 11:19 am
Dirkjan Ochtman Aug 05, 2009 11:28 am
Mark Hammond Aug 05, 2009 11:46 am
Glenn Linderman Aug 05, 2009 05:43 pm
Paul Moore Aug 05, 2009 04:24 pm
Neil Hodgson Aug 05, 2009 08:25 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 08:41 am
Neil Hodgson Aug 05, 2009 09:09 am
Georg Brandl Aug 05, 2009 07:43 pm
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 08:13 pm
Georg Brandl Aug 05, 2009 08:18 pm
Ben Finney Aug 05, 2009 05:56 am
Mark Hammond Aug 05, 2009 06:08 am
Ben Finney Aug 05, 2009 06:50 am
Mark Hammond Aug 05, 2009 07:31 am
Ben Finney Aug 05, 2009 08:00 am
Mark Hammond Aug 05, 2009 08:09 am
Ben Finney Aug 05, 2009 09:42 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 08:12 am
Stephen J. Turnbull Aug 05, 2009 02:28 pm
Georg Brandl Aug 05, 2009 07:56 pm
Mark Hammond Aug 06, 2009 12:34 am
Stephen J. Turnbull Aug 06, 2009 06:00 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 06, 2009 06:40 am
Stephen J. Turnbull Aug 06, 2009 07:12 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 07:45 am
Dj Gilcrease Aug 05, 2009 06:02 am
Dirkjan Ochtman Aug 05, 2009 08:25 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 08:51 am
Dirkjan Ochtman Aug 05, 2009 09:04 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 09:12 am
Mark Hammond Aug 05, 2009 09:02 am
Dirkjan Ochtman Aug 05, 2009 09:09 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 09:16 am
Mark Hammond Aug 05, 2009 09:17 am
Nick Coghlan Aug 05, 2009 12:50 pm
MRAB Aug 05, 2009 01:35 pm
Dirkjan Ochtman Aug 05, 2009 01:37 pm
Nick Coghlan Aug 05, 2009 02:12 pm
Oleg Broytmann Aug 05, 2009 01:50 pm
Oleg Broytmann Aug 05, 2009 01:57 pm
Stephen J. Turnbull Aug 05, 2009 03:34 pm
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 05, 2009 06:37 pm
Stephen J. Turnbull Aug 06, 2009 05:00 am
"Martin v. Löwis" Aug 06, 2009 05:48 am
Neil Hodgson Aug 06, 2009 10:10 pm
M.-A. Lemburg Aug 07, 2009 08:31 am
Antoine Pitrou Aug 07, 2009 12:12 pm
M.-A. Lemburg Aug 07, 2009 12:48 pm
Neil Hodgson Aug 05, 2009 10:22 pm
M.-A. Lemburg Aug 06, 2009 08:31 am
Antoine Pitrou Aug 06, 2009 08:51 am
Nick Coghlan Aug 06, 2009 10:19 am
M.-A. Lemburg Aug 06, 2009 10:40 am
M.-A. Lemburg Aug 06, 2009 10:46 am
Antoine Pitrou Aug 06, 2009 11:01 am
M.-A. Lemburg Aug 06, 2009 11:34 am
Antoine Pitrou Aug 06, 2009 11:42 am
Dirkjan Ochtman Aug 05, 2009 02:04 pm
Messages in this thread