On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzy...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 December 2011 10:29, Yuval Greenfield <ubershme...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > > unittest2 has a Python 3 port: unittest2py3k > > docutils is also Python 3 compatible (since version 0.6), even if they're > not using the trove classifier. >
My initial response was to remove modules that had python 3 equivalents on the wall. This makes sense for eg setuptools and jinja as it wouldn't be accurate to give them a double green listing and skew the percentage. Packages that have a single listing on the top 200 and have a python 3 equivalent I should mark as green. I guess the best solution would be to consolidate these packages. I'll work on it. Concerning docutils, I sent an email to Lea Wiemann (lewiem...@gmail.com) and am cc-ing David Goodger for the trove classifier though I don't think I can be held responsible for this one. Yuval Greenfield _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
