[EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Tim Peters wrote:
> [Ilias Lazaridis]
> ...
> 
>>Let's see:
>>
>>The process would be:
>>
>>a) A Python Foundation official states: "of course we accept diversity
>>and of course we are intrested that our source-code-base compiles
>>directly with MinGW (and other compilers)".
> 
> Well, I'm a Director of the Python Software Foundation, and my view is
> "the more platforms the merrier".  

I extract: "you are intrested, that the source-code-base compiles 
directly with MinGW (and other compilers)".

Thus you should be intrested, that existent patches are incorporated 
into the source-code-base.

The suggested process ist: use of #defines whenever possible, to avoid 
influence on the existent behaviour of the code.

> But I'm not paid to work on Python,
> and I don't have time to volunteer to help MinGW along, so I don't
> anticipate that I'll do anything here beyond writing this reply.

You have done already very much.

But should should take some time to evaluate community needs.

> I think you're mistaken about the role the PSF plays here.  For
> example, the PSF does no development work on Python -- all work on
> Python comes from volunteers, and the PSF can't tell anyone what to
> do.  

I understand.

PSF has no influence on the development. I've read a little around, and 
start to understand:

http://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes-2004-11-09.html

> The PSF did start a grant program last year, and a proposal to
[...] - (funding)

I don't think that a founding is neccessary.

This effort could be driven by the intrested community members (which 
obviously exist).

>>b) the pyMinGW developer states: "I am intrested that my patches are
>>included within the main python source code base" [of course this
>>contribution would deserve to be mentioned somewhere]

I mean the developer of those patches:

http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html

He must be intrested that his patches are incorporated to the main 
source code base, which would render his website useless [but of course 
not his efforts and reputation].

[Of course his website could still serve as an "central point" for 
intrested MinGW specific contributors.]

>>c) One part of the Python Community states: "look those loosers, like to
>>use MinGW toolkit - pah! I'll continue to use my super-optimizing, xx%
>>faster results, less hassle Microsoft-Compiler"

 From the replies within this thread, i've extracted that some community 
members would think somehow this way.

>>d) One part of the Python Community states: "I'm very happy that my
>>toolset of choice gets official support, to which I can contribute as a
>>community member"

 From the replies within this thread, i've extracted that some community 
members would think somehow this way.

>>e) there is no point e. People start simply to cooperate, thus python's
>>evolution is ensured.

A solid source-code-base and centralized efforts are a fundamentall part 
for the evolution of python.

> Sorry, I didn't grasp the point of b thru e.

I've tried to clarify.

-

Now, can you please tell me the process I have to follow to suggest the 
following (to the PSF or to the programmers or to the decision takers), 
possibly to get at least a vote on it:

"Please ensure that the source-code-base compliles directly with MinGW. 
The suggested process is to:

   * provide the infrastructure
     (e.g. mailinglist, issue- tracking-category,... )

   * Notify the community about this subproject to channelise efforts

   * include existing MinGW specific patches

   * ensure future verificatioin of changes,
     * optimal:    due to an automated build-system
     * or simpler: due to community-feedback
"

I've read a little about the processes:

http://www.python.org/dev/
http://www.python.org/dev/culture.html
http://www.python.org/dev/process.html

But I can't figure it out.

>>... 
>>Good night to all.
> 
> 
> Likewise!

.

-- 
http://lazaridis.com