[Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:52:29 +0000
Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> [This is getting off-topic, so I'll limit my comments to this one email]
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 03:17, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> > We have never really had a discussion about how we want to guide the stdlib going forward (e.g. how much does PyPI influence things, focus/theme, etc.). Maybe we should consider finally having that discussion once the governance model is chosen and before we consider adding a new module as things like people's inability to access PyPI come up pretty consistently (e.g. I know Paul Moore also brings this up regularly).
> I'm not sure a formal discussion on this matter will help much - my
> feeling is that most people have relatively fixed views on how they
> would like things to go (large stdlib/batteries included vs external
> modules/PyPI/slim stdlib). The "problem" isn't so much with people
> having different views (as a group, we're pretty good at achieving
> workable compromises in the face of differing views) as it is about
> people forgetting that their experience isn't the only reality, which
> causes unnecessary frustration in discussions. That's more of a people
> problem than a technical one.
I'd like to point the discussion is asymmetric here.
On the one hand, people who don't have access to PyPI would _really_
benefit from a larger stdlib with more batteries included.
On the other hand, people who have access to PyPI _don't_ benefit from
having a slim stdlib. There's nothing virtuous or advantageous about
having _less_ batteries included. Python doesn't become magically
faster or more powerful by including less in its standard
distribution: the best it does is make the distribution slightly
So there's really one bunch of people arguing for practical benefits,
and another bunch of people arguing for mostly aesthetical or