On 4 September 2016 at 06:44, Sylvain Corlay <sylvain.cor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Brett, > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> >> >> If Jason is up for the responsibility that seems like a reasonable >> approach to take. It also helps test out features in setuptools first before >> upstreaming it. >> > > How do you see `has_flag` get into setuptools? By monkey-patching distutils' > ccompiler to have it aside of `has_function` when setuptools is imported? > > I find really weird the idea of adding this in a convoluted fashion instead > of allowing incremental improvement of distutils.
The change to distutils would still be a plain patch to distutils, it would just be accepted at the API design level in setuptools first. The problem you're running into right now isn't a technical one - it's that there isn't anyone that currently feels like they have sufficient design authority over the distutils API to accept your proposal, hence Brett starting this thread to address that underlying recurring question, rather than the specifics of your change. Jason *definitely* has that design authority over setuptools though, and will be tasked with making any API additions available on older versions of Python via setuptools regardless of what policy we adopt for distutils maintenance, so if he's amenable to the idea, it makes sense to me to invert the order we ask those questions: add it to setuptools first, and then add things to distutils where we feel they're sufficiently stable to not need the benefit of the faster setuptools update cycle. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig