On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:13 PM Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Apr 13, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Ben Finney <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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 > > > I don’t see any problem with the general idea of adding features to PyPI to > enable package maintainers to find more help maintaining specific parts of > their projects. I do have a problem with expecting the PyPI administrators > to fill out or otherwise populate this information. Saying “Here’s a place > you can donate to me” is still a fact, it’s just a more social fact than > what we currently enable. > > I’m kind of down on the idea of linking to CVs or linkedin as part of the > project metadata because that’s not project specific and is really more > maintainer specific. I think that particular feature would be better suited > to some sort of global “Python profile” that could then be linked to from > PyPI instead of trying to bake it into PyPI itself. > > However things like “Looking for New Maintainers / Orphan a Project”, > or some call to actions on “here are some issues that need fixed” or other > things doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Particularly the ability to orphan > a project or look for new maintainers seems like a useful thing to me that > really can’t live anywhere other than PyPI reasonably. > I agree. Even something as simple as a boolean that triggers a banner saying "this project is looking for a new maintainer" would be useful both from the perspective of project owners who want to move on or from the perspective of users who can't tell if a project is maintained based on how long it has been since a project uploaded a new version (which is why I think someone suggested sending an annual email asking for a human action to say "alive and kicking" to help determine if a project is completely abandoned). -Brett
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
