In your first plone example you first use plone.app.content, but then present the directory structure of plone.app.command.
Apart from that, the PEP seems legit to me, contentwise. I think some parts are clumsily formulated, but IMO rewriting these parts wouldn't even decrease the text's length or improve readability. -- Markus (from phone) "Benoît Bryon" <ben...@marmelune.net> wrote: >Hi! > >Attached is a an updated proposal for PEP 423. >You can also find it online at >https://gist.github.com/benoitbryon/2815051 > >I am attending at EuroPython 2013 in Florence. Isn't it a great >opportunity to get feedback and discuss about a PEP? I registered an >open-space session and a lightning-talk today! > >Some notes about the update... > >The main point that was discussed in the previous proposal was the >"top-level namespace relates to code ownership rule". Here is a quote >from Antoine Pitrou: > >Le 27/06/2012 12:50, Antoine Pitrou a écrit : >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:08:45 +0200 >> Benoît Bryon<ben...@marmelune.net> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here is an informational PEP proposal: >>> http://hg.python.org/peps/file/52767ab7e140/pep-0423.txt >>> >>> Could you review it for style, consistency and content? >> There is one Zen principle this PEP is missing: >> >> Flat is better than nested. >> >> This PEP seems to promote the practice of having a top-level >namespace >> denote ownership. I think it should do the reverse: promote >> meaningful top-level packages (e.g. "sphinx") as standard practice, >and >> allow an exception for when a piece of software is part of a larger >> organizational body. > >So, the main change in the proposal I'm sending today is the removal of > >this "ownership" rule. >It has been replaced by "Use a single namespace (except special >cases)". > >Some additional changes have been performed, such as removal of some >sections about "opportunity" or "promote migrations". I also added a >"Rationale" section where I pointed out some issues related to naming. > >The PEP has been marked as "deferred" because it was inactive and it is > >partly related to PEP 426. I left this deferred state. > >I am aware that some links in the PEP are broken... I will fix them >later. My very first motivation is to get feedback about the "big" >changes in the PEP. I wanted the update to be sent before >EuroPython-2013's open-space session. I guess a detailed review would >be >nice anyway, for links, style, grammar... > >Also, I wonder whether the PEP could be shortened or not. Sometimes I >cannot find straightforward words to explain things, so perhaps someone > >with better skills in english language could help. Or maybe some parts, > >such as the "How to rename a project" section, could be moved in other >documents. > >Regards, > >Benoît > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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/markus%40unterwaditzer.net _______________________________________________ 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