I personally agree with what Phillip is suggesting below. So, 1) Who decides that we should "make it so"? Do we just start submitting tickets to set up classifiers? 2) What would be a good minimum number of packages before a classifier is warranted? 5? 10?
There are now two TurboGears plugins on PyPI. Once 0.9 is released, I expect there will be quite a few more, and I'd like to stay ahead of the curve on this. Kevin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Dec 30, 2005 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [Catalog-sig] adding trove classifiers? To: Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: catalog-sig@python.org At 11:24 PM 12/29/2005 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: >I actually had thought "Framework :: Zope2" would be good, and kind of >marks it as something particular to cheeseshop (and thus to Python). +1 for a "Framework" hierarchy for plugins/extenders/applications. Flat is better than nested, especially when it's something you have to type out in your setup script. ;) I would also suggest that some criteria be established for determining when a new category should be listed. For example, a certain minimum number of packages *already* registered on PyPI whose authors request the classification. I don't think we should pre-populate the hierarchy beforehand; it should be strictly on an as-requested basis. _______________________________________________ Catalog-sig mailing list Catalog-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig -- Kevin Dangoor Author of the Zesty News RSS newsreader email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] company: http://www.BlazingThings.com blog: http://www.BlueSkyOnMars.com _______________________________________________ Catalog-sig mailing list Catalog-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
