I have a suggestion. Holger obviously feels he has something very important to say, and a lot of e-mails have already been sent back and forth. Is there some way that Donald, Nick, and Holger could perhaps have a conference call or hangout of some sort just for the purpose of understanding and/or confirming exactly what his concern is (and, if possible, coming to agreement on a resolution)? And then the result of that conversation can be summarized for the list? I think that might be more constructive at this point and courteous to Holger. I know that for me, sometimes "a quick phone call" can do wonders.
--Chris On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 2014, at 8:59 AM, holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 08:47 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote: > >>> On Oct 8, 2014, at 8:43 AM, holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 22:18 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >>>> On 8 October 2014 21:40, holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> No, i am not concerned about the extra index supplying whatever > packages. > >>>>> After all, the users specifies the option and should trust that > index. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am concerned about the fact that public PyPI links are merged in > even > >>>>> for my private packages residing on the extra index. > >>>> > >>>> That's what a default repository *does*. It's always on, unless you > >>>> explicitly turn it off. Hence the name *extra index*. The index URL > >>>> option is the one to use if you want to *replace* the index. > >>> > >>> Nick, i don't know why you are saying this. Do you think i don't know > this? > >>> > >>> My point is that PyPI makes for a very different default repository > than the > >>> Debian or Redhat one. Or do you disagree there? > >> > >> If you understand that, then your statements in here don’t make any > sense to me. > >> > >> What is it you’re trying to achieve exactly? Do you think the PEP > should be > >> rejected? Do you think it needs amended? You’re saying things that I > can’t reconcile > >> how they relate to the PEP (and I’m apparently not the only one) nor > can I convert > >> them into actionable feedback. > > > > Sorry that it's so unclear to you, Nick and Paul. I tried my best. > > And i tried to make suggestions what to change, what to avoid, what > > kind of options pip would need to become safer etc.. That was all meant > > as useful feedback to get a better PEP and end result. > > > > But if you and Nick as authors refuse my suggestions (mainly: > > backward compat, more careful reasoning about multi-index ops) then i am > > currently clearly -1 on the PEP because i think it does more harm than > good. > > > > And i'll let it all rest at that for a bit because i don't want to > > spend more time on it right now. > > I think I responded why I had considered and then rejected the backwards > compatibility concern. We may just disagree on that point. > > I don’t understand what “more careful reasoning about multi-index ops” > means. > Maybe if you suggest a rewording or point to a specific part of the PEP > that > you think should be removed/edited/added to? > > If you’d rather not do that above that’s fine! Just saying if you care to > spend > more time on it that maybe an explicit suggestion of what to change in the > PEP > would be easier to understand. > > --- > Donald Stufft > PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
