Author gvanrossum
Recipients benjamin.peterson, gvanrossum, loewis, mattsmart, pmoody, shields
Date 2008-09-25.14:05:15
SpamBayes Score 7.09135e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <ca471dc20809250705k6fba3d88gecc617afb2b3af67@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1222315652.14.0.446266803484.issue3959@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Martin v. Löwis <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> added the comment:
> I see a list of owners in the code (although it's difficult to infer
> real names or email addresses from that list). I think we should not
> include the code without their explicit approval.

I know they *want* this to happen, no worries on this front.

> The question will then always be: what is the official master copy of
> the code? The one in Python, or the one on Google code? Whose
> responsibility would it be to keep those synchronized, and incorporate
> changes from one copy into the other?
>
> I would prefer if the copy in Python (say, 2.7) becomes the master copy,
> and the copy on Google code eventually disappears (when interest in
> older Python versions has died).

I'm in favor of this, and I believe the authors at Google are too --
it was written out of necessity, and once integrated, the need for a
separate Google copy will go away.

> I would object to a mere fork of the code (i.e. where one of the regular
> Python committers incorporates, from time to time, the changes that
> Google made)

Agreed.
History
Date User Action Args
2008-09-25 14:08:26gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, loewis, benjamin.peterson, mattsmart, shields, pmoody
2008-09-25 14:05:17gvanrossumlinkissue3959 messages
2008-09-25 14:05:15gvanrossumcreate