Donald Stufft <donald <at> stufft.io> writes: > I think the way you view distlib and the way other are viewing distlib are > different (and that's ok). We just need to know what distlib is so we can > have reasonable expectations of it. What i'm getting from you is that, at > least right now, distlib isn't what I thought it was and I (and others) should > stop treating it as *the* reference implementation of the new standards. > > I'm not trying to stop you from innovating, I'm just trying to make sure everyone > has reasonable expectations all around.
I don't see how anyone is treating it as a reference implementation, other than just talking about it being such. I have had very good feedback from one or two people who are using it, but for the most part I see no evidence that people on this list are using it to the extent they would if they really thought "this might be a good candidate for a reference implementation - I see it's early days, and there's work to do, but it seems usable, so let me check it out and see that my use cases are covered, and if anything's been overlooked". In my view, nothing deserves to be a considered a "reference implementation" other than through merit, or perhaps by "being number one in a field of one". Merit isn't earned unless the software is used and refined based on real-world experience. The time to try distlib is now (not in production environments, obviously), to allow any problems with it to be identified early in its life. That would be more helpful than any sniping from the sidelines about whether it does more than what it needs to for PEP conformance. Regards, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
