On 01/07/2010 01:23 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
As Simon pointed out, while some organisations do work that way, the PSF
isn't one of them.
The PSF only requires that the code be contributed under a license that
then allows us to turn around and redistribute it under a different open
source license without requesting additional permission from the
copyright holder. For corporate contributions, I believe the contributor
agreement needs to be signed by an authorised agent of the company - the
place to check that would probably be p...@python.org (that's the email
address for the PSF board).
Assuming the subject line relates to the code that you would like to
contribute though, that particular change is unlikely to happen - 2.6 is
in maintenance mode and changing RLock from a Python implementation to
the faster C one is solidly in new feature territory. Although a
backport of the 3.2 C RLock implementation to 2.7 could be useful, I
doubt that backporting code provided by an existing committer would be
the subject of this query :)
Regards,
Nick.
Yes, it is the new RLock implementation.
If I understood this correctly, we should make a patch against trunk if
anything should be contributed.
Do you mean that we wouldn't need the paperwork for backporting the
original patch committed to py3k?
Regards
Johan Gill
Agama Technologies
_______________________________________________
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
