I do not like the name.

Python-internals? Not consistent with other lists on gnome.org or elsewhere. Typically 'devel' is used, even if it causes confusion sometimes.

We already have http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/language-bindings.

Isn't this strictly a bindings list, but specific for Python?

(In reply to comment #1)
> I do not like the name.
> 
> Python-internals? Not consistent with other lists on gnome.org or elsewhere.
> Typically 'devel' is used, even if it causes confusion sometimes.
> 
> We already have http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/language-bindings.
> 
> Isn't this strictly a bindings list, but specific for Python?

Yes, this is a bindings list specific for Python but not restricted to pygobject or any other module.

Quoting David Malcolm about what the name tries to convey:

 * that it relates to python ("py" does this succinctly)
 * that it's for the implementation details and that you need to know
C, rather than being for people developing stuff in Python using GTK
(which "dev"/"devel" can misleading convey).
 * that questions about the internals are on-topic, even if you're not
developing the internals themselves (which a "dev" or "devel" might
imply
 * that it's a single place to discuss pygtk, pygi, pygobject wrapper
implementations

This list would be specifically used for implementation details related to supporting GNOME with python.  It isn't about developing in python which is why -devel is such a bad name.

The objective here is to have a single place for all of the python module stake holders to unravel the confusion brought about by the loss of the original GNOME Python maintainer to the JavaScript world, the introduction of Python3 and the move to Gnome Introspection/GNOME 3.0.

Right now all of the different modules (PyGTK, pygobject, pygi) are coasting in different directions.  The hackfest helped a lot to focus us and this list is a continuation of that process.  It also brings the python maintenance infrastructure under the gnome.org umbrella, helping to ensure we don't run into these issues in the future.

We need a list that is clear in its intent and naming.  Because of the legacy and importance of Python within GNOME we feel that any little bit that will help us maintain and move forward with a singular goal is worth doing.  This list will help us do that by consolidating development within one noise free list.

python-hackers-list is being proposed by GNOME sysadmins, comment soon if you don't agree or will be too late...

I am not focussed on speed, rather to make sure the best name is chosen.

python-hackers-list was proposed by Jeff Schroeder
python-bindings-list or python-binding-list by me
python-internals-list by you

Please just comment on above.

Also, what will the 'users' list be called? There is already a pygtk one, I assume at one point more will happen at gnome.org.

(In reply to comment #5)
> I am not focussed on speed, rather to make sure the best name is chosen.
> 
> python-hackers-list was proposed by Jeff Schroeder
> python-bindings-list or python-binding-list by me
> python-internals-list by you

I think all of them are good enough.

> Please just comment on above.
> 
> Also, what will the 'users' list be called? There is already a pygtk one, I
> assume at one point more will happen at gnome.org.

For now, users are using http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk and I haven't heard anybody proposing moving it anywhere.

Thanks!

I like internals the best because it does convey that we shouldn't be discussing user code unless it pertains to a bug in the internal implementation.  Bindings and hackers are better than devel so I am ok with either of those also.

Discussed some more with Owen. python-hackers-list it is.

http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/python-hackers-list