On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 01:43, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> Overall, my suggestion here would be to have a file called ``pymeta.toml`` >> (or >> ``meta.toml``) > > pymeta.toml would be fine by me. > > I don't really buy the "collision with Debian build tool" argument > against "pybuild" (if I did, I'd be objecting to "pymeta" colliding > with an existing PyPI package), so it's mainly the fact the metadata > in this file covers more than just building has soured me on it.
Re: filename bikeshedding: "pymeta" feels very "inessentially weird" to me [1]. This file is going to front and center for newcomers, many of whom will never have encountered the word "metadata" and especially not the hacker fetish for the "meta" morpheme. I like meta-things in general! But I don't like the image of trying to explain what a "pymeta" is over and over and over again when teaching :-). pymetadata would be better, but it seems like there must be something less jargony available? pypackage pypackaging pydevelop pysource pytools pysettings ...? Or if we're really daring and wasteful of characters, I guess we could even go for something like python-tools.toml :-) -n (Tangent, but I'll write it down so I don't forget when we circle back to the question of adding config for third-party tools into this thing: [tool.flit], [tool.coverage] is probably a lot more obvious to newcomers than [extension.flit], [extension.coverage]!) [1] https://www.crummy.com/sumana/2014/08/10/1 -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
