On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Lukasz Langa wrote:
>PEP: 541
>Title: Package Index Name Retention
Overall, +1
I agree with Steve that some short term name squatting may be appropriate.
I'm not sure how you would word that in the PEP, but it will probably
effectively work itself out anyway. When
This is a great PEP, glad to see an official policy being worked on!
The "reachability" criteria I think should define how promptly the
responses are expected and to what email(s) they will be sent (if there are
multiple maintainers, owners, authors, etc.). For example, "the first
contact will be
On 13.01.2017 19:08, Lukasz Langa wrote:
> Invalid projects
>
>
> A project published on the Package Index meeting ANY of the following
> is considered invalid and will be removed from the Index:
>
> * project does not conform to Terms of Use;
> * project is malware (designed to
On 13Jan2017 1050, Lukasz Langa wrote:
Thanks for review, Steve!
On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Steve Dower wrote:
An *abandoned* project can be transferred to a new owner for purposes
of reusing the name when ALL of the following are met:
...
The list here is nearly identical to the previo
Thanks for review, Steve!
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> I don't see any reason to expect the index maintainers to trawl through a
> project's documentation or home page to find contact details. There are more
> than enough ways to provide it on the index, and as far a
Looks great to me. Just a few comments that may help reduce the burden
on the index maintainers.
On 13Jan2017 1008, Lukasz Langa wrote:
In every case where contacting the user is necessary,
the maintainers will try to do so at least three times, using the
following means of contact:
* the e-ma
On 01/13/2017 10:08 AM, Lukasz Langa wrote:
I'd like to get some comments on this. I was asked by Donald to work on it. It
removes ambiguity from some of the situations that crop up increasingly often
with regards to package names on the PyPI. Looking forward to hearing what you
have to say!
+1 on the proposal.
I would suggest to state where it is posted (somewhere obvious) on pypi,
and possibly some kind of automated notification to pypi uploaders be
provided about the new policy.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Lukasz Langa wrote:
> Hello distutils-sig,
> I'd like to get some c
Hello distutils-sig,
I'd like to get some comments on this. I was asked by Donald to work on it. It
removes ambiguity from some of the situations that crop up increasingly often
with regards to package names on the PyPI. Looking forward to hearing what you
have to say!
- Ł
PEP: 541
Title: Pack
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Thomas Güttler <
guettl...@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
> What is an application for you?
Another way to think about this, FWIW, is to distinguish between the "whole
system" (for which "Application" is often a useful shorthand), as opposed
to components (aka librar
It's probably a good idea here to explicitly distinguish between the kind
of application that's a web app you deploy to sort of managed server
environment, and the kind of application that's a command line or GUI tool
that people download and run. The same word means radically different
things to d
On 13 January 2017 at 12:23, Thomas Güttler
wrote:
> Am 12.01.2017 um 13:43 schrieb Nick Coghlan:
>>
>> On 12 January 2017 at 22:04, Thomas Güttler
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I came across a python library which has docs, which start like this:
>>>
>>> {{{
>>>
>>> Quickstart
>>>
>>> Include foolib in yo
Am 12.01.2017 um 13:43 schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On 12 January 2017 at 22:04, Thomas Güttler
wrote:
I came across a python library which has docs, which start like this:
{{{
Quickstart
Include foolib in your requirements.txt file.
}}}
AFAIK dependencies should be specified via `install_requi
13 matches
Mail list logo
