>>>>> "Gustavo" == Gustavo Niemeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gustavo> An issue to consider about this is that maintainers (not Gustavo> talking about you or anyone else specifically) have Gustavo> different concepts of stability, and while it may seem Gustavo> perfectly ok to refactor external modules between two Gustavo> stable releases, doing so in the standard library would Gustavo> spread fear and "python is so untrustful" feelings. This simply hasn't been a problem in XEmacs's equivalent to the standard library. In fact, the library modules tend to be more stable than the core, for several reasons. One important one is that the modules we distribute are not necessarily the bleeding edge. In particular, we try to keep up (within a couple weeks) with bugfixes to stable lines, but often lag several months after a major refactoring. This multitrack approach does involve some extra administrative work, but the burden on the core team is minimal. Most modules are managed by volunteers who do not feel able to contribute to the core (and often not to the coding of "their" module), but are very pleased to be able to contribute in this way. They are usually far more competent than the core developers to judge when new features are sufficiently attractive and stable to warrant updating to a refactored version, too. They tend to be more conservative than the module's lead maintainer, too. I will grant that XEmacs deserves (and probably has<wink>) a lower trust rating than Python, but that is due to flaws in the _core_, not in the package management. -- School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com