<p><br>
On Mar 14, 2012 5:27 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <<a href="mailto:solipsis@pitrou.net">solipsis@pitrou.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:16:40 -0700<br>
> Guido van Rossum <<a href="mailto:guido@python.org">guido@python.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Terry Reedy <<a href="mailto:tjreedy@udel.edu">tjreedy@udel.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > Authors of separately maintained packages are, from our viewpoint, as<br>
> > > eligible to help with tracker issues as anyone else, even while they<br>
> > > continue work on their external package. Some of them are more likely than<br>
> > > most contributors to have the knowledge needed for some particular issues.<br>
> ><br>
> > This is a good idea. I was chatting w. Senthil this morning about<br>
> > adding improvements to urllib/request.py based upon ideas from<br>
> > urllib3, requests, httplib2 (?), and we came to the conclusion that it<br>
> > might be a good idea to let those packages' authors review the<br>
> > proposed stdlib improvements.<br>
><br>
> We don't have any provisions against reviewal by third-party<br>
> developers already. I think the main problem (for us, of course) is that<br>
> these people generally aren't interested enough to really dive in<br>
> stdlib patches and proposals.<br>
><br>
> For example, for the ssl module, I have sometimes tried to involve<br>
> authors of third-party packages such as pyOpenSSL (or, IIRC, M2Crypto),<br>
> but I got very little or no reviewing.</p>
<p>Rather than indicating apathy on the party of third party developers, this might be a sign that core Python is unapproachable or not worth the effort. </p>
<p>For instance I have several one line patches languishing, I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to have significantly larger patches ignored, but it happens. </p>