FWIW I think if pip and virtualenv are being elevated to a new level of "official", I have no problem with the "pypa" name being used as the umbrella for the next few years' "improve python packaging" efforts. I know I've talked to some people who don't follow packaging closely who thought this was already the case and were surprised to learn that e.g. distribute was not "part of the PyPA."
Python packaging already suffers from a "too many similar but slightly different names" problem; let's consolidate rather than exacerbate this problem. I just checked and my Bitbucket account does not have admin control over bitbucket.org/pypa - must be Jannis? Regarding other administrative issues: On 03/20/2013 11:59 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > I don't have a problem with the extension of the pypa "brand name" to > cover this, and I'm all in favour of pip and virtualenv being > sanctioned as the "official" answers in this space, I'd be a little > cautious over some of the administrative aspects of such a move, > though - consider if there's a sudden rush of people who want to > contribute to packaging documents - do we want them to have commit > rights on pip? Do we have different people committers on the github > and bitbucket repos? Not insurmountable issues, but worth considering. We already have multiple "teams" on the github PyPA to allow for different committers on pip vs virtualenv. AFAIK bitbucket also supports per-repo access control. So I don't see any reason this should be a problem: using the name "PyPA" as an umbrella does not imply that there must be a single list of people with equal access to all PyPA repositories. Carl
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
