- E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

[Ilias Lazaridis]

[this is a summary of a private conversation that I had with the 
developer of the phMinGW. It contains just my comments. I've send 
additionally a CC via email (private-to-public switch notification)]

-

A.B., Khalid wrote:
[...]

Khalid,

first of all I like to thank you for the efforts you have taken to
provide pyMinGW to the python community.

I would like to assist you with your efforts, see below.

> If passing all the regression tests of the official Windows Python 
> distribution is an indication of the quality of patch-- and pyMinGW 
> patched and MinGW built Python does pass all of them-- then one is 
> inclined to say that pyMinGW is a good patch.


=> {pyMinGW is a good patch}

> The reason why it is, on the other hand, not included in the official
>  distribution is threefold.
> 
> 1. Contrary to what many might imagine, I don't think enough people
> use MinGW to frankly justify any extra effort beyond pyMinGW.


The defined "extra effort" is the effort to provide the patches for the
main source-code base?

If you can send me an email of how to do this, I would take this effort.

of course I must first know, that the python-team would accept those
patches (technical applicability provided).

Thus this can wait, until an official response.

> 2. Given number 1 above, this patch, I believe, and I could be 
> mistaken, must not rush to be included in Python's core;


Of course you are right.

> people like your esteemed person should test it (note that it is
> designed not to interfere with your trusted and working official
> Python, if any);


=> {trusted and working official python}

: it is

> only when enough people do such testing that there will be a case for
>  it to be included in Python's core.


I agree with you.

If you are willing to extend your project, thus the intrested community
members can collaborate, I would like to assist you to do so.

I would try to take away all setup efforts from you.

> 3. Finally. there is nothing wrong with third-party patches if they
> get the job done, which I believe is the case with pyMinGW.


You have stated above: "trusted and working official python"

The main goal would be, to get a "trusted and working official python"
based on MinGW, _within_ the official source-code-base.

The secondary goal would be, to get a "trusted and working official
python" based on MinGW, _with_ a very close to the official
source-code-base (possibly with just one #define).

-

Please contact me vial email if you are intrested.

> Regards, Khalid


Best Regards,

ILIAS LAZARIDIS

-
-
-

After some comments, [which did not show to me an intrested of making 
the above happen (which is fully in the developers rights)], I've 
simplified my suggestions in the following message:


"
thank you for your comments.

I will express my suggestion more practically

   * as a first step, I would setup a pyMinGW mailinglist
     * intrested people can come together an communicate
   * as a second step, I would setup an SVN
     * intrested projects could get your patch via SVN
   * as a third step, I would find intrested contributors
     * which would help testing
     * which would help you with coding

All this could happen without (or with very low) efforts for you.
"

-
-
-

I got no answer.

-
-
-

.

-- 
http://lazaridis.com