At 03:12 PM 7/17/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
P.J. Eby wrote:
At 07:38 PM 7/17/2009 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Whether or not the fork is friendly, it is a fork, not a
continuation. Also, there never really was a âsetuptools 1â. I
think it's only going to be confusing to call this âsetuptools 2â.
Definitely. I'd really rather it not be called that, and would
prefer that your versioning scheme not imply a continuation either...
*especially* if it's based on the 0.6x branch, which is just about
a dead parrot at this point.
Phil,
How come you couldn't reply to anything other than this?
Because if you RTFM'd, you'd see that I don't respond to private
email about setuptools. Had you written via the distutils-SIG, you'd
have had a better chance of an answer, though it might still have
taken another week before you got the reply.
(I have odds and ends from distutils-SIG saved in a folder for later
reply or action... but the oldest is from February 2007, so two
weeks isn't that bad!)
I really don't understand your attitude and lack on communication on
what has become so important a package...
Setuptools was something I originally wrote for common requirements
in my work projects... then expanded into a funded project to
provide Chandler with a plugin infrastructure. These days, I don't
have time to code on the projects I *enjoy* and *want* to code
on... and setuptools as it stands today is not one of those projects.
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
