On Wed, 14 May 2014 11:31:15 -0300, "Joao S. O. Bueno" <jsbu...@python.org.br> wrote: > +1 for an official policy that comes with a "permanent maintainer for > this platform required" as part of the list > of requisites. > > js > -><- > > On 14 May 2014 11:20, Brett Cannon <bcan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Over the past week or so there have been 2 patches to add support for > > various UNIX OSs. Now I thought we had stopped trying to add new esoteric > > OSs (e.g. I had never heard of MirOS until the patch for it came in), but I > > can't find a PEP that spells out what it takes to get a platform supported > > (http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0011/ is about removing platforms, > > not keeping them or adding them unless you are re-adding one which > > apparently just takes a volunteer). > > > > Do we want an official policy written down in a PEP (yes, I can write it)? > > Should I keep closing these patches and saying that we are not adding > > support for new operating systems and be hand-wavy about it?
In addition to a maintainer (who I think doesn't have to be a committer, though that would be ideal), I think a maintained buildbot should be a requirement for formal support. --David _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
