On 24 August 2017 at 13:59, Cooper Ry Lees <m...@cooperlees.com> wrote: > Thanks all for your points. > > Is it fine if I get a Informational PEP going to discuss 'Metadata Repository > API'? I will structure it similar to PEP503, but also talk about: > > - The data exposed today (Specification)
+1 > -- And possibly call on some PyPI people to correct me where I guess wrong Yep, that's part of the PEP review process - to indicate this, use the same BDFL-Delegate and Discussions-To values as are in PEP 503. > - How mirrors should mirror it In particular, it would be ideal if they could generate it themselves from the already mirrored PEP 503 data, rather than having to make additional API calls to the main PyPI server. > - Possible furure enhancements (JSONLD etc.) Discussion of future enhancements doesn't really belong in an Informational PEP. Instead, I've filed https://github.com/pypa/packaging-problems/issues/102 as a common place for folks to put notes about what they may want to see in a possible future API. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
