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) -- And possibly call on some PyPI people to correct me where I guess wrong - How mirrors should mirror it - Possible furure enhancements (JSONLD etc.) What else should we have in this PEP? Cooper > On Aug 23, 2017, at 7:04 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 24 August 2017 at 04:59, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> I don’t have a major opinion on a PEP for the JSON api or not. It depends I >> guess on whether tools like bandersnatch/devpi/etc want to offer it. Given >> that this is all brought on by a PR to bandersnatch it appears that there is >> a reasonable argument that it is something that those tools want, and >> standardizing it is a good idea. > > +1, especially as it will help clarify the required test cases for > Warehouse as well (I'm not sure how much of the JSON API has been > implemented at this point). > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > _______________________________________________ > 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
