On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > > Regarding the usefulness of such a feature, take the PIL package > as example: > > http://pypi.python.org/pypi/PIL/1.1.6 > > """ > Package rating (3 votes): 4.66666666667 > > * 4 points: 1 vote > * 5 points: 2 votes > > Ratings range from 0 to 5 (best). > Package Comments: > > * Hugely stable, been around forever, and works. Unfortunate distribution > naming causes problems > with setuptools. (chrisw, 2009-10-05, points) > * super cool lib - #1 pick! just sad to see the packaging difficulties. > (jensens, 2009-10-05, > points) > """ > > Those comments are not really all that useful for a user, > since they put too much emphasis on a non-package related issue. > This is like saying: "Great bag, but doesn't come in pink, so > only 4 points.". An educated user will notice, a casual user > will just see the negative vibes and not bother with PIL, > since it "causes problems" - now *that* is sad. >
hello, I do see how they could be perceived as not being good comments. However I see them differently, as being useful... Those comments are both positive, and friendly... but are also offering constructive critisism. They give an overall good impression of PIL(that it deserves). They both mention a common problem people have with PIL/Image/python imaging. I've had this problem myself, and I've helped people with this problem over the years. It's great feedback for the authors of PIL in my opinion, and is a win for the comments on pypi. If the authors decide to fix the problems mentioned, then it's a win for users of PIL too. People with commercial packages on there would be right to not like comments in some respects. Since commercial organisations often like to control their PR as much as possible. So in this way, the comments are not such a good thing for PIL. However also, commercial organisations pay a lot for feedback, QA and market research... so in a way it is also good for commercial packages too. The python community likes openness I would say, and comments go towards more openness. Comments move the communication on pypi from entirely author based, towards letting users speak as well. Should openness be valued more than valuing an authors wishes? Packages can already remove themselves from pypi if they don't like it. However, as someone said before, being able to disable certain features would still let them use the features they want. cu, _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
