On 6/21/12 7:49 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ta...@ziade.org
<mailto:ta...@ziade.org>> wrote:
telling us no one that is willing to maintain setuptools is able
to do so. (according to him)
Perhaps there is some confusion or language barrier here: what I said
at that time was that the only people who I already *knew* to be
capable of taking on full responsibility for *continued development*
of setuptools, were not available/interested in the job, to my knowledge.
Specifically, the main people I had in mind were Ian Bicking and/or
Jim Fulton, both of whom had developed extensions to or significant
chunks of setuptools' functionality themselves, during which they
demonstrated exemplary levels of understanding both of the code base
and the wide variety of scenarios in which that code base had to
operate. They also both demonstrated conservative, user-oriented
design choices, that made me feel comfortable that they would not do
anything to disrupt the existing user base, and that if they made any
compatibility-breaking changes, they would do so in a way that avoided
disruption. (I believe I also gave Philip Jenvey as an example of
someone who, while not yet proven at that level, was someone I
considered a good potential candidate as well.)
This was not a commentary on anyone *else's* ability, only on my
then-present *knowledge* of clearly-suitable persons and their
availability, or lack thereof.
Yes, so I double-checked my sentence, I think we are in agreement: you
would not let folks that *wanted* to maintain it back then, do it.
Sorry if this was not clear to you.
But let's forget about this, old story I guess.
I would guess that the pool of qualified persons is even larger now,
but the point is moot: my issue was never about who would "maintain"
setuptools, but who would *develop* it.
And I expect that we would at this point agree that future
*development* of setuptools is not something either of us are seeking.
Rather, we should be seeking to develop tools that can properly
supersede it.
This is why I participated in Distutils-SIG discussion of the various
packaging PEPs, and hope to see more of them there.
I definitely agree, and I think your feedback on the various PEPs were
very important.
My point is just that, we could (and *should*) in my opinion, merge back
setuptools and distribute, just to have a py3-enabled setuptools that is
in maintenance mode,
and work on the new stuff in packaging besides it.
the merged setuptools/distribute project could also be the place were we
start to do the work to be compatible with the new standards
That's my proposal.
Tarek
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
