Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
On 11/28/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Perhaps the following compromise can be made: the PSF accepts patches > > from reputable platform maintainers. (Of course, like all > > contributions, they must be of high quality and not break anything, > > etc., before they are accepted.) If such patches cause problems with > > later Python versions, the PSF won't maintain them, but instead invite > > the original contributors (or other developers who are interested in > > that particular port) to fix them. If there is insufficient response, > > or if it comes too late given the PSF release schedule, the PSF > > developers may decide to break or remove support for the affected > > platform. > > This is indeed the compromise I was after. If the contributors indicate > that they will maintain it for some time (which happened in this case), > then I can happily accept any port (and did indeed in the past). > > In the specific case, there is an additional twist that we deliberately > removed DOS support some time ago, and listed that as officially removed > in a PEP. I understand that djgpp somehow isn't quite the same as DOS, > although I don't understand the differences (anymore). > > But if it's fine with you, it is fine with me. Thanks. :-) I say, the more platforms the merrier. I don't recall why DOS support was removed (PEP 11 doesn't say) but I presume it was just because nobody volunteered to maintain it, not because we have a particularly dislike for DOS. So now that we have a volunteer let's deal with his patches without prejudice. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
Guido van Rossum wrote: > I don't recall why DOS support was removed (PEP 11 doesn't say) The PEP was actually created after the removal, so you added (or asked me to add) this entry: Name: MS-DOS, MS-Windows 3.x Unsupported in: Python 2.0 Code removed in: Python 2.1 Regards, Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
Guido van Rossum wrote: > Perhaps the following compromise can be made: the PSF accepts patches > from reputable platform maintainers. (Of course, like all > contributions, they must be of high quality and not break anything, > etc., before they are accepted.) If such patches cause problems with > later Python versions, the PSF won't maintain them, but instead invite > the original contributors (or other developers who are interested in > that particular port) to fix them. If there is insufficient response, > or if it comes too late given the PSF release schedule, the PSF > developers may decide to break or remove support for the affected > platform. This is indeed the compromise I was after. If the contributors indicate that they will maintain it for some time (which happened in this case), then I can happily accept any port (and did indeed in the past). In the specific case, there is an additional twist that we deliberately removed DOS support some time ago, and listed that as officially removed in a PEP. I understand that djgpp somehow isn't quite the same as DOS, although I don't understand the differences (anymore). But if it's fine with you, it is fine with me. Regards, Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
On 11/20/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The local python community here in Sydney indicated that python.org is > > only upset when groups port the source to 'obscure' systems and *don't* > > submit patches... It is possible that I was misinformed. > > I never heard such concerns. I personally wouldn't notice if somebody > ported Python, and did not feed back the patches. I guess that I'm the source of that sentiment. My reason for wanting people to contribute ports back is that if they don't, the port is more likely to stick on some ancient version of Python (e.g. I believe Nokia is still at 2.2.2). Then, assuming the port remains popular, its users are going to pressure developers of general Python packages to provide support for old versions of Python. While I agree that maintaining port-specific code is a pain whenever Python is upgraded, I still think that accepting patches for odd-platform ports is the better alternative. Even if the patches deteriorate as Python evolves, they should still (in principle) make a re-port easier. Perhaps the following compromise can be made: the PSF accepts patches from reputable platform maintainers. (Of course, like all contributions, they must be of high quality and not break anything, etc., before they are accepted.) If such patches cause problems with later Python versions, the PSF won't maintain them, but instead invite the original contributors (or other developers who are interested in that particular port) to fix them. If there is insufficient response, or if it comes too late given the PSF release schedule, the PSF developers may decide to break or remove support for the affected platform. There's a subtle balance between keeping too much old cruft and being too aggressive in removing cruft that still serves a purpose for someone. I bet that we've erred in both directions at times. > Sometimes, people ask "there is this and that port, why isn't it > integrated", to which the answer is in most cases "because authors > didn't contribute". This is not being upset - it is merely a fact. > This port (djgcc) is the first one in a long time (IIRC) where > anybody proposed rejecting it. > > > I am not sure about the future myself. DJGPP 2.04 has been parked at beta > > for two years now. It might be fair to say that the *general* DJGPP > > developer base has shrunk a little bit. But the PythonD userbase has > > actually grown since the first release three years ago. For the time > > being, people get very angry when the servers go down here :-) > > It's not that much availability of the platform I worry about, but the > commitment of the Python porter. We need somebody to forward bug > reports to, and somebody to intervene if incompatible changes are made. > This person would also indicate that the platform is no longer > available, and hence the port can be removed. It sounds like Ben Decker is for the time being volunteering to provide patches and to maintain them. (I hope I'm reading you right, Ben.) I'm +1 on accepting his patches, *provided* as always they pass muster in terms of general Python development standards. (Jeff Epler's comments should be taken to heart.) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
> It's not that much availability of the platform I worry about, but the > commitment of the Python porter. We need somebody to forward bug > reports to, and somebody to intervene if incompatible changes are made. > This person would also indicate that the platform is no longer > available, and hence the port can be removed. > > Regards, > Martin I think the port has beed supported for three years now. I am not sure what kind of commitment you are looking for, but the patch and software are supplied under the same terms of liability and warranty as anything else under the GPL. Bug reports can be sent to either [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:06:16PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next >> > "PythonD" (for DOS/DJGPP) is released. >> >> PEP 11 says that DOS is not supported anymore since Python 2.0. So >> I am -1 on reintroducing support for it. The local python community here in Sydney indicated that python.org is only upset when groups port the source to 'obscure' systems and *don't* submit patches... It is possible that I was misinformed. > If we have someeone who is volunteering the time to make it work, not just > today > but in the future as well, we shouldn't rule out re-adding support. I am not sure about the future myself. DJGPP 2.04 has been parked at beta for two years now. It might be fair to say that the *general* DJGPP developer base has shrunk a little bit. But the PythonD userbase has actually grown since the first release three years ago. For the time being, people get very angry when the servers go down here :-) > I've taken a glance at the patch. There are probably a few things to > quarrel > over--for instance, it looks like a site.py change will cause python to > print > a blank line when it's started, and the removal of a '#define HAVE_FORK 1' > in > posixmodule.c---but this still doesn't mean the re-addition of DOS as a > supported > platform should be rejected out of hand. Well, that's for sure! These patches have never been reviewed by python.org before, so I am sure that there are *plenty* of ways to better fit DOS support into the Python source. Fork will never work under DOS, no matter how much we dream :-) The empty line 'print' was a legacy error to kludge the ANSI color scheme to work correctly. Long story. It can be ignored. In fact, none of the changes to site.py are essential for python to work under DOS. They are 'additions' that most of the PythonD userbase seem to enjoy, but few knew how to do for themselves at one time. But they aren't essential tto the port. The important aspects are the path and stat stuff. Nothing works without them. I should mention that one thing that never did get ported was the build scripts themselves to accomodate DJGPP-DOS. For a complete port, we must still look at Modules/makesetup to remember that although directory separators "\\" or "/" are OK, the path separator ":" is definitely not. ";" must be used. So far, we have simply changed Setup and the Makefiles by hand after initial confiure. Ben - Stay ahead of the information curve. Receive MCAD news and jobs on your desktop daily. Subscribe today to the MCAD CafeNews newsletter. [ http://www10.mcadcafe.com/nl/newsletter_subscribe.php ] It's informative and essential. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
Ben Decker wrote: > I think the port has beed supported for three years now. I am not > sure what kind of commitment you are looking for, but the patch and > software are supplied under the same terms of liability and warranty > as anything else under the GPL. That (licensed under GPL) would be an issue, as we are not accepting GPL-licensed code. I would guess that you are flexibly in licensing, though: we would request that you allow us to relicense the contribution under the terms at http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html The commitment I was looking for was rather a statement like "I will be maintaining it for several coming years; when I ever stop maintaining it, feel free to remove the code again". So it is not that much past history (although this also matters, and three years of availability is certainly a good record); it is more important to somehow commit to future support, so that we are not left alone with code when cannot maintain if you ever drop out. Regards, Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 06:08:45PM +1100, Ben Decker wrote: > I think the port has beed supported for three years now. I am not sure what > kind of commitment you are looking for, but the patch and software are > supplied under the same terms of liability and warranty as anything else > under the GPL. Python is not GPL software. If your patch is under the terms of the GPL, it cannot be accepted into Python. Jeff pgpMgSdWqGNaF.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The local python community here in Sydney indicated that python.org is > only upset when groups port the source to 'obscure' systems and *don't* > submit patches... It is possible that I was misinformed. I never heard such concerns. I personally wouldn't notice if somebody ported Python, and did not feed back the patches. Sometimes, people ask "there is this and that port, why isn't it integrated", to which the answer is in most cases "because authors didn't contribute". This is not being upset - it is merely a fact. This port (djgcc) is the first one in a long time (IIRC) where anybody proposed rejecting it. > I am not sure about the future myself. DJGPP 2.04 has been parked at beta > for two years now. It might be fair to say that the *general* DJGPP > developer base has shrunk a little bit. But the PythonD userbase has > actually grown since the first release three years ago. For the time > being, people get very angry when the servers go down here :-) It's not that much availability of the platform I worry about, but the commitment of the Python porter. We need somebody to forward bug reports to, and somebody to intervene if incompatible changes are made. This person would also indicate that the platform is no longer available, and hence the port can be removed. Regards, Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've taken a glance at the patch. There are probably a few things to quarrel > over--for instance, it looks like a site.py change will cause python to print > a blank line when it's started, and the removal of a '#define HAVE_FORK 1' in > posixmodule.c---but this still doesn't mean the re-addition of DOS as a > supported > platform should be rejected out of hand. Well, my experience is that people contributing "minority" ports run away after getting their patches accepted more often than not (that so happened with the BeOS port and the VMS port, to take recent examples). So I would prefer to see some strong commitment from the porter. Even so, I don't think I'm willing to commit such a patch myself. If somebody else thinks this is worthwhile, I won't object. Regards, Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:06:16PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next > > "PythonD" (for DOS/DJGPP) is released. > > PEP 11 says that DOS is not supported anymore since Python 2.0. So > I am -1 on reintroducing support for it. If we have someeone who is volunteering the time to make it work, not just today but in the future as well, we shouldn't rule out re-adding support. I've taken a glance at the patch. There are probably a few things to quarrel over--for instance, it looks like a site.py change will cause python to print a blank line when it's started, and the removal of a '#define HAVE_FORK 1' in posixmodule.c---but this still doesn't mean the re-addition of DOS as a supported platform should be rejected out of hand. Jeff pgpjEOaUPEZZv.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next > "PythonD" (for DOS/DJGPP) is released. PEP 11 says that DOS is not supported anymore since Python 2.0. So I am -1 on reintroducing support for it. Regards, Martin ___ 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
[Python-Dev] Patch Req. # 1351020 & 1351036: PythonD modifications
Hello, I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next "PythonD" (for DOS/DJGPP) is released. Thanks in advance. Regards, Ben Decker Systems Integrator http://www.caddit.net - Stay ahead of the information curve. Receive MCAD news and jobs on your desktop daily. Subscribe today to the MCAD CafeNews newsletter. [ http://www10.mcadcafe.com/nl/newsletter_subscribe.php ] It's informative and essential. ___ 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
