Filipe has been active with CPython and the importlib/distutils space for some time now, including as triager for at least a year (if my memory serves me). In this role, he’s demonstrated technical insight, respect, and ability to compromise and drive to pragmatic solutions, but he’s also shown a willingness to back away when things get heated.
He’s expressed interest in maintaining sysconfig. The current owner/expert listed for sysconfig is Tarek, who hasn’t been active for some time.
As Filipe’s mentor, I believe Filipe would be an excellent choice to own and maintain sysconfig. I’m willing to continue to serve as collaborator and mentor as needed.
The first step of owning the component would be to grant commit access, hereby requested.
Promote Filipe Laíns
Don’t promote Filipe Laíns
0voters
Note the poll is simply about promoting Filipe to a Core Dev. The specifics about ownership of sysconfig will be considered separately subsequently.
Issues · python/cpython · GitHub and Pull requests · python/cpython · GitHub
show 16 issues and 3 PRs with ‘sysconfig’ in the title. .github/CODEOWNERS currently has no one signed up for the sysconfig module (which should probably go under MISC). We definitely need someone who will help maintain sysconfig.
FWIW, I’ve had a great experience working with Filipe on the import system on several occasions. including at the PyCon sprints this year. He was always bright, inquisitive, and determined, while also thoughtful, respectful, and cautious. Working with him was pleasant.
Honestly, I’m a little bit scared by the idea of getting more sysconfig changes. Any sysconfig change can break many things related to packaging. In Fedora and RHEL, we have issues caused by the fact that pip installs Python files in /usr/local, whereas RPM installs Python files in /usr. The “vendor configuration” idea to tune sysconfig scares me, but I commented the PR (which was rejected). Sorry, I’m not sure if my feedback on packaging is relevant here.
Having more people involved means making wiser decisions, since more eyes look into issues. So it’s a good thing I would just suggest to not rush on merging changes, but still follow the usual consensus-based voting system (things already done currently).
90% in favor exceeds the 2/3 required, so the motion passes. Thanks everyone. I’ll follow up with the steering council and incorporate the feedback above for guidance.
Thank you for the trust, I am looking forward to help where I can.
@vstinner, thank you. I understand the worry, I am focused on trying to open up discussion channels with downstreams, so that we can come to decisions together and avoid breakage or any negative impact on the packaging ecosystem.
I would just suggest to not rush on merging changes, but still follow the usual consensus-based voting system