Hello

The maintainers listing is helpful for us outside bug reporters, but only present in the py3k branch. I copied it and reverted module name changes. Attached is the resulting file and the diff against py3k.

Regards

I didn't put maintainers.rst into 2.6 because I didn't want to commit to maintaining the two divergent copies. If you want to commit to maintaining it in the 2.x branch (copying changes backwards from the 3.x branch), then I'd be +0 (or maybe even +0.5) on adding it there.

Module names have to be converted only once, so now maintenance is just
keeping names updated. I’m willing to commit to maintaining the
maintainers file <0.2 meta wink> with one caveat: Core developers can
commit and merge immediately, keeping branches in sync, whereas I don’t
update my copies of trunk and py3k every day. If some lag up to one week
is acceptable, then I’d be happy to maintain the file.

Regards

I'm the one who recently added FTPS support to ftplib.py and wrote tests for both FTP and FTPS. I'm not the "maintaner" of the module but I'd like to be notified in case of issues about it, so would it make sense for me to appear in the list?

@Éric: even if you prepare the patches, I find I'm not interested in doing the checkins. If someone else wants to take this on that's fine with me, but I'm not going to do it.

I read the maintainers list. I don't like empty lines. If a module has no maintainer, it should not be listed in this file. Since Python3 module names are different, if we copy the list to Python2, maintaining this list between Python2 and Python3 will be more difficult. Yes, some modules have no dedicated maitainer, but it doesn't mean that the module is dead. And I see a list without maintainer as a dead module.

Interest Area: algorithms has no maintainer... why is algorithms listed in maintainer list? Does it mean that people not listed in this line are not interested by algorithms?

Even if it's more difficult to maintain two versions of this file (Python2 and Python3), I would like to see it in Python2 (so I'm +1 for this issue).

Any module without a listed maintainer is maintained by the community as a whole (as it says in the introduction). The fact that a module does not have a listed maintainer does not mean it is dead, and I don't think anyone(except you? :) thinks that. All modules are listed for completeness, and so that it is obvious which modules it would be most helpful if someone with an interest put themselves down as expert for (as Giampaolo has just done for ftplib).

Algorithms was listed as an interested area as a result of a brainstorming session for interest areas. I think we had Raymond in mind :). If no one has chosen to be listed, that line should probably be deleted.

I think perhaps the name chosen for the file was unfortunate. I view it more as the 'experts' file, rather than the maintainers file, though in some cases the expert is indeed the principle maintainer of the module (such as Vinay for logging).

I am willing to maintain the maintainers file for 2.x with due diligence for the coming years. I think it has proven useful, and would like to see it in 2.6 up to 3.2 (all current four branches, since it’s arguably a documentation issue). Do I need to find a unique committer willing to work with me for this to be accepted?

Updating the files. haypo, your move! :)

I added Misc/maintainers.rst in 2.7 (r81899). But I don't want to maintain it, so merwork, will have to send me your patches ;-)

We’ve agreed on that :) Thanks.

Just stumbled upon this stuff. Good job. I can already see how it can be useful.