Thanks for sharing that background, Nick. Instead, the main step which has been taken (driven in no small part by the Python 3 transition) is the creation of PyPI counterparts for modules that see substantial updates that are backwards compatible with earlier versions (importlib2, for example, lets you use the Python 3 import system in Python 2).
So is the intention that, over the long term, these PyPI counterparts would cannibalize their standard library equivalents in terms of usage? Nick On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:38 PM Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 January 2016 at 12:50, Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Something else to consider. We’ve long talked about splitting out the > stdlib > > to make it easier for the alternative implementations to import. If some > or > > all of them also switch to git, we could do that pretty easily with git > > submodules. > > > > Not to derail here, but wasn’t there a discussion (perhaps on > python-ideas) > > about slowly moving to a model where we distribute a barebones Python > > “core”, allowing the standard modules to be updated and released on a > more > > frequent cycle? Would this be one small step towards such a model? > > That discussion has been going on for years :) > > The most extensive elaboration is in the related PEPs: > > PEP 407 considered the idea of distinguishing normal releases and LTS > releases: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0407/ > PEP 413 considered decoupling standard library versions from language > versions: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0413/ > > The ripple effect of either proposal on the wider community would have > been huge though, hence why 407 is Deferred and 413 Withdrawn. > > Instead, the main step which has been taken (driven in no small part > by the Python 3 transition) is the creation of PyPI counterparts for > modules that see substantial updates that are backwards compatible > with earlier versions (importlib2, for example, lets you use the > Python 3 import system in Python 2). Shipping pip by default with the > interpreter runtime is also pushing people more towards the notion > that "if you're limiting yourself to the standard library, you're > experiencing only a fraction of what the Python ecosystem has to offer > you". > > We don't currently do a great job of making those libraries > *discoverable* by end users, but they're available if you know to look > for them (there's an incomplete list at > > https://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3#Supporting_Python_2_and_Python_3_in_a_common_code_base > ) > > pip's inclusion was also the first instance of CPython shipping a > *bundled* library that isn't maintained through the CPython > development process - each new maintenance release of CPython ships > the latest upstream version of pip, rather than being locked to the > version of pip that shipped with the corresponding x.y.0 release. > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
