[Ilias Lazaridis] ...
Let's see:
The process would be:
a) A Python Foundation official states: "of course we accept diversity and of course we are intrested that our source-code-base compiles directly with MinGW (and other compilers)".
Well, I'm a Director of the Python Software Foundation, and my view is
"the more platforms the merrier".
I extract: "you are intrested, that the source-code-base compiles directly with MinGW (and other compilers)".
Thus you should be intrested, that existent patches are incorporated into the source-code-base.
The suggested process ist: use of #defines whenever possible, to avoid influence on the existent behaviour of the code.
But I'm not paid to work on Python, and I don't have time to volunteer to help MinGW along, so I don't anticipate that I'll do anything here beyond writing this reply.
You have done already very much.
But should should take some time to evaluate community needs.
I think you're mistaken about the role the PSF plays here. For
example, the PSF does no development work on Python -- all work on
Python comes from volunteers, and the PSF can't tell anyone what to
do.
I understand.
PSF has no influence on the development. I've read a little around, and start to understand:
http://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes-2004-11-09.html
The PSF did start a grant program last year, and a proposal to
[...] - (funding)
I don't think that a founding is neccessary.
This effort could be driven by the intrested community members (which obviously exist).
b) the pyMinGW developer states: "I am intrested that my patches are included within the main python source code base" [of course this contribution would deserve to be mentioned somewhere]
I mean the developer of those patches:
http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
He must be intrested that his patches are incorporated to the main source code base, which would render his website useless [but of course not his efforts and reputation].
[Of course his website could still serve as an "central point" for intrested MinGW specific contributors.]
c) One part of the Python Community states: "look those loosers, like to use MinGW toolkit - pah! I'll continue to use my super-optimizing, xx% faster results, less hassle Microsoft-Compiler"
From the replies within this thread, i've extracted that some community members would think somehow this way.
d) One part of the Python Community states: "I'm very happy that my toolset of choice gets official support, to which I can contribute as a community member"
From the replies within this thread, i've extracted that some community members would think somehow this way.
e) there is no point e. People start simply to cooperate, thus python's evolution is ensured.
A solid source-code-base and centralized efforts are a fundamentall part for the evolution of python.
Sorry, I didn't grasp the point of b thru e.
I've tried to clarify.
-
Now, can you please tell me the process I have to follow to suggest the following (to the PSF or to the programmers or to the decision takers), possibly to get at least a vote on it:
"Please ensure that the source-code-base compliles directly with MinGW. The suggested process is to:
* provide the infrastructure
(e.g. mailinglist, issue- tracking-category,... )* Notify the community about this subproject to channelise efforts
* include existing MinGW specific patches
* ensure future verificatioin of changes,
* optimal: due to an automated build-system
* or simpler: due to community-feedback
"I've read a little about the processes:
http://www.python.org/dev/ http://www.python.org/dev/culture.html http://www.python.org/dev/process.html
But I can't figure it out.
... Good night to all.
Likewise!
.
-- http://lazaridis.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
