On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Jannis Leidel <jan...@leidel.info> wrote: > Am 18.01.2010 um 21:47 schrieb Martin v. Löwis: > >>> FWIW, I don't see the PEP to be completed. The actual mirror >>> protocol, how to handle multiple (unsynchronized) indexes and the API >>> design are clearly undecided -- and not discussed. >> >> The actual mirror protocol *is* decided, even though it's not explicitly >> spelled out in the PEP. It is based entirely on existing API; no new API >> on the PyPI side is planned. Basically, you do a lot of HTTP GETs. > > If it's decided why isn't it public in the PEP? If you want developers to > contribute you need stop deciding in private.
Come on, that's not what happened. IIRC Jim Fulton and Philip Eby worked with Martin to make easy_install / zc.buildout calls on PyPI efficient. Then I started the PEP later, but because I wanted to set up an "official ring" of mirrors. I am the one to blame because I didn't update that part of the PEP yet consequently. But the PEP doesn't really address the protocol to be used to browse PyPI. It's just informative. This is a de-facto standard for years now (you use it everytime you install something using pip or easy_install), and it was discussed in the Mailing Lists back then when it was created. It didn't land in a PEP back then, like other stuff don't. So nothing was decided in private. Now the push stuff could be great to have maybe, but I agree with Martin that we should first setup the mirrors then learn from there. (For the story, I've proposed a push stuff at first when we started to discuss this PEP, but I eventually agreed that this was not the most important thing to have our first version of a mirror ring). Regards, Tarek _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
