On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:21 AM, PJ Eby <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Lennart Regebro <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm -1 on anything that doesn't involve at least a minimal level of human >>> involvement (possibly excepting an initial clean up exercise for projects >>> with no author email) >> >> This is why I basically said I'm OK with automatic deletion after a >> time if there are no downloadable packages and no contact information. >> Otherwise the owner should be contacted. > > Some people are saying "files uploaded" vs. "downloadable packages". > I don't like the "files uploaded" criterion because IMO it's a > perfectly valid use case to list a package on PyPI which is only > available via external revision control. > > Heck, a project that only has planning documents and a reasonably > active mailing list should still qualify for PyPI listing, else the > original distutils-sig would not have qualified for reserving the name > "distutils" on PyPI, before its first release. ;-)
Absolutely. Which gets us back to the "nothing to download, no way of contacting" criteria I originally proposed. :-) //Lennart _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
