On Saturday, April 16, 2011, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit : >> On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> > Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit : >> >> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> >>> What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to >> >>> do the ongoing maintenance. Bob apparently isn't interested in >> >>> maintaining stdlib code, and python-dev members aren't interested in >> >>> maintaining simplejson (assuming it would be at all possible). Since >> >>> both groups of people want to work on separate codebases, I don't see >> >>> how sharing a single codebase would be possible. >> >> >> >> From reading this thread, it seems to me like the proposal is that Bob >> >> maintains a simplejson for both 2.x and 3.x and that the current >> >> stdlib json is replaced by a (trivially changed) version of >> >> simplejson. >> > >> > The thing is, we want to bring our own changes to the json module and >> > its tests (and have already done so, although some have been backported >> > to simplejson). >> >> Depending on what those changes are, would it not be possible to apply >> the vast majority of them to simplejson itself? > > Sure, but the thing is, I don't *think* we are interested in backporting > stuff to simplejson much more than Bob is interested in porting stuff to > the json module.
I've backported every useful patch (for 2.x) I noticed from json to simplejson. Would be happy to apply any that I missed if anyone can point these out. > I've contributed a couple of patches myself after they were integrated > to CPython (they are part of the performance improvements Bob is talking > about), but that was exceptional. Backporting a patch to another project > with a different directory structure, a slightly different code, etc. is > tedious and not very rewarding for us Python core developers, while we > could do other work on our limited free time. That's exactly why I am not interested in stdlib maintenance myself, I only use 2.x and that's frozen... so I can't maintain the version we would actually use. > Also, some types of work would be tedious to backport, for example if we > refactor the tests to test both the C and Python implementations. simplejson's test suite has tested both for quite some time. >> Furthermore, now that python uses Mercurial, it should be possible (or >> even easy) to use a versioned queue (via MQ) for the trivial >> adaptation, and the temporary alterations (things which will likely be >> merged back into simplejson but are not yet, stuff like that) should >> it not? > > Perhaps, perhaps not. That would require someone motivated to put it in > place, ensure that it doesn't get in the way, document it, etc. > Honestly, I don't think maintaining a single stdlib module should > require such an amount of logistics. It certainly shouldn't, especially because neither of them changes very fast. -bob _______________________________________________ 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
