Ok, numbers updated with better processing that looks right this time. I still believe it holds up to the conclusions I said earlier.
https://gist.github.com/dstufft/5ebfb0d7e53194e5f89e On May 17, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 17, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On May 16, 2014, at 3:27 PM, Carl Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> Basically, I think some acknowledgment of this problem of packages >>>>> without active maintainers (and ideally a proposed solution to it) >>>>> should be in PEP 470. >>>> >>>> Right now the PEP's (and my) position is that it breaks because I believe >>>> that >>>> the impact of this change is being overblown. I'm attempting to gather more >>>> data now. >>> >>> You could be right. More data would certainly be good. >>> >>> Thanks for all your work on all this stuff! >>> >>> Carl >> >> So I’ve went ahead and processed the data. I did this by taking the list of >> projects which *only* host externally, either safely or unsafely. This ended >> up being a little over 1700 projects. After that I took the log file from >> PyPI for 2014-05-14 and looked for any hits on their simple page by pip or >> setuptools. I only looked for these two in order to exclude mirroring >> clients and the like. >> >> The end result is that 339 projects have any hits at all, ~1400 projects did >> not receive any hits to their simple page in that time at all. A handful of >> projects received significant hits, with PIL being an obvious outlier that >> received ~72k. >> >> Here are the list of projects that received any hits to their simple page >> which are hosted completely off of PyPI: >> >> https://gist.github.com/dstufft/5ebfb0d7e53194e5f89e >> >> I feel that this validates my assumption that the vast bulk of these >> external projects are vestigial. >> >> ----------------- >> Donald Stufft >> PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > > Hmm, scratch this. these numbers may be wrong. I’m going through and spot > checking them and something seems off. Will re-evaluate. > > ----------------- > Donald Stufft > PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
