On Mar 2, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 02:54 PM 3/2/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: >> Right now the trove categories don't make much sense for Python >> projects; lots of cruft, little granularity around things we actually >> care about. >> >> And "Topic :: Internet :: WWW/HTTP" is a super-lame category >> anyway ;) >> It should be "Topic :: Web". But eh... really, the whole >> hierarchy and >> taxonomy of packages is stupid. > > +1. Flat is better than nested, and the current categories are > insanely > nested. 5 levels deep to get to the idea of "Message Boards"? Wow. > > That having been said, I'm sure the trove stuff was adopted for a > very good > reason, i.e., to avoid getting bogged down in taxonomy wars before > there > was even a working product. :) > > Now, however, that there are hundreds of projects already on a working > system, it might be a good idea to see what categories are actually > getting > used, and consider collapsing them to a flatter hierarchy, or maybe > even > just tags.
I'd go +1 for (freeform) tags.. the tags people want to use to describe their projects should shake out pretty quickly, and it prevents us from ever having to request a new topic whenever someone comes up with a new idea or web framework :) -bob _______________________________________________ Catalog-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
