Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> added the comment: > I'm just suggesting to add the meta-data field in order to recreate > consistency - not advocating that setup() parameter or its use.
Yes but fixing this inconsitency can be done on either side: A - remove the maintainer and maintainer_email B - add the Maintainer and Maintainer-email in the metadata While I understand your PoV about the fact that B/ is not impacting existing packages and doesn't require any deprecation, I would like to find some use cases for having such fields in the Metadata, other than fixing the inconsistency. If we don't have a use case, I'd go for A/ ---------- title: Adding a Contributor field in PEP 314 -> PEP 314 inconsistency (authors/author/maintainer) _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6992> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
