> On 16 Nov 2016, at 15:55, Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: > > >> On 16 Nov 2016, at 13:30, Roland Hedberg <rol...@catalogix.se> wrote: >> >> >>> On 16 Nov 2016, at 14:50, Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> I think the core question you need to answer for this proposal is: why is >>> “pip install oic” not easy-enough reach? > > It should be noted that I believe that Python’s standard library is already > too big, and has had a tendency in the past to expand into cases that were > not warranted. I think that saying that you’re worried that users won’t find > your module and so it should go into the standard library is solving the > wrong problem. We shouldn’t just shove useful things into the standard > library because they’re useful: that leads to a massive, bloated standard > library that is an enormous maintenance burden for the Python core developers > who frankly have more than enough to be doing already. Instead, we should aim > to solve the actual problem: how do we provide tools to allow users to find > the best-in-class solutions to their problems from the third-party Python > ecosystem?
I agree that is the real question. For instance, I remember someone raising at a PyCon US the concern about modules that no longer has a maintainer. That would just be the one among several things you need to know about modules you consider using. > That there is a much harder problem, unfortunately, but I think we should aim > to provide a bit of impetus towards solving it by refusing to add things to > the standard library that aren’t likely to be extremely broadly useful. Granted — Roland _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
