[Python-3000] Limitations of "batteries included"

[Neil Schemenauer]

Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> Now, there's plenty of pure Python (or Python-specific) functionality
> for which "batteries included" makes total sense, including the email
> package, wsgiref, XML processing, and more; it's often a judgement
> call. But I want to warn against the desire to include everything --
> it's not going to happen, and it shouldn't.

It sounds like we basically agree as to what "batteries included"
means.  Still, I think we should include more batteries.  The
problem is that, with the current model, the Python development team
has to take on too much responsibility in order to include them.

The "email" package is a good example.  Most people would agree that
it should be included in the distribution.  It meets the
requirements of a battery: it provides widely useful functionality,
it has a (relatively) stable API, and it's well documented.
However, it should not have to live in the Python source tree and be
looked after be the Python developers.

There should be a set of packages that are part of the Python
release that managed by their own teams (e.g.  email, ElementTree).
In order to make a Python release, we would coordinate with the
other teams to pull known good versions of their packages into the
final distribution package.  There could be a PEP that defines how
the package must be organized, making it possible to automate most
of the bundling process (e.g. unit test and documentation
conventions).

  Neil