On 27 March 2014 18:11, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > Nick Coghlan writes: > > > On 27 Mar 2014 07:02, "Guido van Rossum" <gu...@python.org> wrote: > >> Actually, the first step is publish it on PyPI, the second is to > >> get a fair number of happy users there. The bar for getting something > >> included into the stdlib is pretty high > > > The "why not a third party module?" bar also got a fair bit higher > > with Python 3.4 - by bundling pip, we have deliberately made third > > party modules easier to consume, thus weakening the convenience > > argument that applies to stdlib inclusion. > > Maybe. That depends on if you care about the convenience of folks who > have to get new modules past Corporate Security, but it's easier to > get an upgrade of the whole shebang. I don't think it's ever really > been resolved whether they're a "typical case that won't go away" or a > special group whose special needs should be considered.
I'm all too well aware of this particular problem (although thankfully don't have to deal with it myself any more), and it's a key part of why I said "a fair bit higher" rather than "insurmountable" :) Such environments *do* usually have procedures to get additional open source software approved, it's just a pain. That pain then becomes another factor to take into account deciding between using a simpler solution, rolling your own custom solution, or tackling your organisation's module approval process. That said, getting approval is definitely easier when the request is to trust "the Python Software Foundation" vs "J. Random Programmer's account on GitHub", so yes, it still counts in favour of sufficiently compelling stdlib additions. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
