[Python-Dev] Re: Proposal: get rid of compilerlike.py

[Guido van Rossum]

> Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>:
> > I have now re-read that discussion; it's in the archives starting this
> > message:
> > 
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-August/016629.html
> 
> As have I.  All the stuff in this thread was before the checkin; 
> you were in fact mistaken about the timing of most of the discussion.

No, I was not mistaken about the timing; you must have misunderstood
what I said about the timing.  When I posted the URL for this thread
this afternoon, I knew that it took place before your checkin.  I did
not see evidence either in the mailing list or in the code that you
took any of the advice though.

> > There were several suggestions to merge it with fileinput and some
> > suggestions to restructure it.  You seem to have ignored these except
> > the criticism on the name "ccframe" (by choosing an even worse name
> > :-).
> 
> I did not ignore these suggestions (one that I took was Greg Ward's
> suggestion that, after all, just throwing an exception was the right
> thing).  And I was in fact planning to merge this thing with fileinput.
> 
> Then I looked as what would have to be done to the documentation of
> fileinput -- in fact, I edited together a combined fileinput
> documentation page.  The result was a mess that convinced me that this
> does indeed need to be a separate module.  There wasn't enough
> coherence between the old fileinput stuff and my entry points to even
> make the *documentation* look like a logical unit, let alone the code.

So, as a matter of process, you should not have checked it in without
coming back to the list with your experience.

> > > What is going on here?  Is it possible that you are mistaken
> > > about the timing of the checkin, and that what you thought was
> > > discussion afterwards was discussion before?  Or am I somehow
> > > missing listmail?
> > 
> > Your mail was probably broken -- it wouldn't be the first time :-(.
> 
> In the event, my mail was not broken.
> 
> > There are two posts in the archives that start with a quote from the
> > checkin mail:
> > 
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-August/017131.html
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-August/017132.html
> 
> Right...one of which completely misses the point by suggesting that
> this is a filter framework, and the other one of which is a "me too"
> basically addressing the naming issue.  Guido, you are yourself
> *notorious* for dismissing naming issues with "that's unimportant" and
> "we can fix it later".  How can you criticize me for doing likewise?

I am criticizing you for not responding at all to the feedback --
whether it was mistaken or not.  That's another violation of process.

Why is suggesting it is a filtering framework completely missing the
point?  If this is not a filter framework, WHAT IS IT?

> > > As for process issues...I agree that we need better procedures and
> > > criteria for what goes into the library.  As you know I've made a
> > > start on developing same, but my understanding has been that *you*
> > > don't think you'll have the bandwidth for it until 2.2 is out.
> > 
> > That's not an excuse for you to check in random bits of code.
> 
> So what, exactly, makes this 'random'?  
> 
> That, Guido, is not a rhetorical question.  We don't have any
> procedures.  We don't have any guidelines.  We don't have any history
> of anything but discussing submissions on python-dev before somebody
> with commit access checks them in.  If no -1 votes and the judgment of
> somebody with commit privileges who has already got a lot of stuff
> in the library is not sufficient, *what is*?

Absence of -1 votes is not enough.  I didn't see any +1 votes -- just
suggestions to try a different tack.  I happened to be too busy at the
time you checked this in to weigh in, but I had a big -1 in my head
which I thought was reflected by other comments.

Eric, I respect you as a person, but as a Python developer, I don't
trust your judgement enough to let you check stuff in without a clear
green light from me.

> I'm not trying to be difficult here, but this points at a weakness in
> our way of doing things.  I want to play nice, but I can't if I don't
> know your actual rules.  I don't know what *would* have been sufficient if
> what I did was not.  I don't think anyone else does, either.

Everybody else who doesn't know the rules for sure starts a
discussion, either here or on the patch manager.  You are the only one
of the 30+ committers who *repeatedly* commits controversial stuff.

I'm not saying that the rules are clear enough (they clearly aren't if
even you don't get them), but I think there's a better way to get
clarity than by acting like a bull in a china cabinet.

> > Some comments on the code:
> 
> This is the sort of critique I was looking for two weeks ago, not a bunch
> of bikeshedding about how the thing should be named.

I'll respond to this later.  First I want you to be clear on the
process: commit privileges are not to be used to force an issue.
(Admin privileges will be used to force an issue if necessary. :-)

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)