Hi Steve, > I've seen this a several times lately (both explicitly, as here, and > in response to suggestions), and I'd like to speak against it: One of > key points of the ITP is to allow others to correct and/or improve the > descriptions before initial package upload and before others waste time > translating them. Is it really asking too much that a maintainer spend > 10 minutes writing a actual description before posting the ITP? You're > going to have to do it eventually, why not now? Is there some sort of > fierce competition in ITPs that I'm unaware of?
This is what I feel about it: ITP should be filled the moment you'd like to package a piece of software, so you're not supposed to know it in deep; thus, the long description (that describes what the package does) can be rewritten during packaging phase. I've simply cut&pasted what's on pypi webpage, noting that during packaging it will be rewritten to adhere to my "way of writing" and better describe the pkg; that's it. Moreover, I've seen *many* itp without even a single word in long description (or with the template sentence): they do not give any additional clue to us then the short description, here at least you have an "idea" of what's in the package. Anyway, if Steve's suggestion is a shared feeling, I try to spend more time in ITP long description as done in this one, and here it is an "extended" :) version of long desc: This python module is designed to add some features to python's threading environment; specifically - inheritance (subclassing) of locks - debugging utility - timeouts with locks - locks with both exclusive and non-exclusive characteristics - read/write mode lock (write locks are exclusive, read locks are not) - "safe" object based locks to help debug lock code. Cheers, Sandro PS: I don't what to be polemic or so :) -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]