Many thanks to Raghu for maintaining the tracker.
My thoughts on moving over to the cpython tracker are
1. Yes, this is a *great* idea.
I look at the fantastic integration that the cpython folks have with
mercurial and rietveld, and think that our development process would
massively improve if we had the same tools. There are great benefits to be
had from a an integrated development process, and it is obvious that
cpython is already experiencing those benefits: it would be fantastic if we
could "inherit" that by moving to the same infrastructure.
Moreover, we'd be more likely to have jython/java considerations included
into the core versions of libraries if we followed an identical process,
that was familiar to cpython core devs and library maintainers.
2. However, I would *not* like to see us run a split tracker. That's just a
recipe for confusion and frustration. There should be only a single
tracker, IMHO, for all jython issues, inclusing history: I'd hate to see us
lose all of our history, there's a lot of useful information in there.
Would it really be that difficult to migrate the contents of our roundup
database to theirs?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:40 PM, fwierzbicki@... <
> A little while ago our Jython tracker maintainer Raghuram Devarakonda
> retired (If you are listening, thanks for doing it for so long
> Raghuram!) and I theoretically took over. I haven't done a great job
> and I'm currently having trouble getting the versions updated. I'm
> considering asking if the CPython folks would be OK with us using
> their tracker, by just adding a "Jython 2.5" and "Jython 2.7" label in
> their version area. The other option is if someone here wants to take
> over maintaining our tracker if there are any takers.... I'm actually
> sort of fond of the idea of sharing the tracker as I plan to merge our
> our entire Lib/ area into CPython's LIb as part of 3.x.
> Here is the list of justifications I plan to send:
> * In the 3.x timeframe, we plan to push all of our *.py code into the
> CPython standard library. I have the support of many core devs on
> this, it just hasn't been done in a systematic way yet. I've already
> done this for a couple of files (for example see
> http://bugs.python.org/issue16886) but I plan to see that all of our
> .py files get pushed as Jython moves to 3.x. Since half of Jython's
> code will live in the CPython repo anyway, why not use the same
> * It would be better for Jython in general if we followed CPython's
> development style more closely, with code reviews etc. It would be
> essential for us to do this with code that actually lives in CPython's
> standard library anyway.
> * The database of who has signed a contributor agreement is clear in
> bugs.python.org, but is not in bugs.jython.org, and it would probably
> be too much work to sync them.
> * The implementation effort would be small (really just add "Jython
> 2.5" and "Jython 2.7" to the Versions field and later "Jython 3.4" or
> whatever version we end up targeting). I also don't see a need to
> migrate the data from bugs.jython.org - we could just slowly re-direct
> people to http:/bugs.python.org on a bug-by-bug basis until traffic to
> htttp://bugs.jython.org gets slow enough, then we could either shut it
> down or leave it up read-only.
> What do you folks think? I have not discussed this with current Jython
> devs yet, as I'd prefer to be sure that it would be acceptable here first.
> Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer
> Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013
> and get the hardware for free! Learn more.
> Jython-dev mailing list