Hi catalog-sig, I'm the wall of shame guy, This was just brought to my attention by Chris via reddit so I'm sorry for chiming in late.
Toshio Kuratomi is correct: > Additionally, I'm not certain of the use case cited. Isn't the utility of > a site like http://python3wos.appspot.com/ in seeing which popular or > widely depended upon packages have no python3 version? With that in mind, > the listing on that page wouldn't seem to depend on whether a package's > author intends to port to python3. 1. If this forum likes it I'll add a lock icon next to packages with the "Programming Language :: Python :: 2 :: Only" classifier with the following mouse-over: "The maintainers of this code have declared it will run on Python 2 only for the foreseeable future". This might lessen the social pressure on the maintainers to port. I don't think it'll help the PR issue. 2. A more useful classifier (in terms of PR) could be "Programming Language :: Python :: 2 :: Py3k equivalent exists". Which would denote that I can entirely remove the red package from the wall. This is currently done manually for the following: 'multiprocessing', 'simplejson', 'argparse', 'uuid', 'setuptools', 'Jinja'. So feel free to tell me if there are more I should add to this list. A classifier would mean more work for everyone, though it is the pure and correct way to go about this. And I hope I'm not considered the bad guy here. Please do contact me with any questions or suggestions. I only want to promote python 3 though I know the site has a dual edge to its sword. --Yuval _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
