Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> writes: > On 11 Apr 2015 12:22, "Alexander Walters" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is the package index really the best place to put this? This is a > > very social-networking feature for the authoritative repository of > > just about all the third party module, and it feels like either it > > could corrupt the 'sanctity' of the repository (in the absolute > > worst case) > > If you're concerned that this feature might weaken the comforting > illusion that PyPI published software is contributed and maintained by > faceless automatons rather than living, breathing human beings, then > yes, encouraging folks to think more about where the software they use > is coming from would be a large part of the point of adding such a > feature.
I can't speak for Alexander, but I'm also −1 to have this *on PyPI*. I'm all for such features existing. What is at issue is whether PyPI is the place to put them. We have been gradually improving the function of PyPI as an authoritative *index* of packages; that's possible because it is a repository of uncontroversial facts, not opinions (i.e. “what is the packaging metadata of this distribution”, “where is its documentation”, “where is its VCS”, etc.). > > I am not saying the PSF shouldn't do this, but is pypi REALLY the > > best part of python.org to put it? > > I personally believe so, yes - sustaining software over the long term is > expensive in people's time, but it's often something we take for granted. > The specific example Guido brought up in his keynote was the challenge of > communicating a project's openness to Python 3 porting assistance. The people doing the work of maintaining PyPI have said many times in recent years that there just isn't enough person-power to add a whole bunch of features that have been requested. Why would we think moderating a social-networking rating, opinion, discussion, or other non-factual database is something reasonable to ask of the PyPI maintainers? Conversely, if we are under the impression that adding ratings, feedback, reviews, discussion, and other features to PyPI is *not* going to be a massive increase in workload for the maintainers, I think that's a foolish delusion which will be quite costly to the reputation PyPI has recently gained through hard effort to clarify its role. By all means, set up a well-maintained social ecosystem around Python packages. But not on PyPI itself: The Python Package Index is feasible in part because it has a clear and simple job, though, and that's not it. -- \ “If you can't hear me sometimes, it's because I'm in | `\ parentheses.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
