On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 January 2014 23:34, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> >> If I'm wrong, then by all means show me where it was discussed so I can admit >> I was wrong. > > You have the burden of proof backwards there. You're the one asking me > to break backwards compatibility, and to let people continue to > believe wheels are only a partial replacement for eggs - it's up to > you to make the case that waiting until wheel 1.1 (which, again, has > nobody committed to writing it and a completely unspecified timeline) > is a superior approach to clarifying something I thought was already > documented when I accepted the PEP (and is certainly inherent in the > design of the format). > > The zipimport compatibility didn't need to be discussed much because > it was there in Daniel's original wheel design - there was never any > proposal to use a zipimport *incompatible* approach, so nobody had to > campaign in favour of zipimport compatibility. > > Cheers, > Nick. > > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia So what did you mean when you said “We discussed it extensively before PEP 427 was approved” if you’re now saying that it wasn’t discussed. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
