Re: [Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > We've played around with robots.txt, but it's still useful for old docs > to be indexed (e.g., for removed features), which just need to figure > out how to get them deprecation in results. I wonder if ref="canonical"> in the old docs wo

Re: [Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

We've played around with robots.txt, but it's still useful for old docs to be indexed (e.g., for removed features), which just need to figure out how to get them deprecation in results. I wonder if in the old docs would help. On Sat, Dec 19, 2015, at 11:02, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > On Sat, Dec 19,

Re: [Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 08:55:26PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Even once the new docs are in place, getting them to the top of search > of results ahead of archived material that may be years out of date is > likely to still be a challenge - for example, even considering just > the legacy distutil

Re: [Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

On 12/19/2015 5:55 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Even once the new docs are in place, getting them to the top of search of results ahead of archived material that may be years out of date is likely to still be a challenge - for example, even considering just the legacy distutils docs, the "3.1" and "2

Re: [Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

Maybe we need to find a S.E.O. expert. I betcha some are lurking on this list. On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 19 December 2015 at 03:44, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Tim Legrand > > > wrote: > >> > >> Well, this looks like a rhetorical

Re: [Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

On 19 December 2015 at 03:44, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Tim Legrand > wrote: >> >> Well, this looks like a rhetorical question :) > > It wasn't, I was hoping you'd be quicker at picking one than me (I don't > publish packages on PyPI much myself so the docs all lo

Re: [Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Tim Legrand wrote: > Well, this looks like a rhetorical question :) > It wasn't, I was hoping you'd be quicker at picking one than me (I don't publish packages on PyPI much myself so the docs all look like Greek to me :-). > As I am totally new to Python packag

Re: [Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

Well, this looks like a rhetorical question :) As I am totally new to Python packaging and publication, I had no precise idea of what I should get from this link. So my guess would be https://docs.python.org/2/distutils/packageindex.html (since I was expecting Python 2.7 resources, not 3.x, but I

Re: [Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

Which of the top links of this query do you think it should be? https://www.google.com/search?q=registering+with+the+package+index+site%3Apython.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Tim Legrand wrote: > Hi guys, > > It's said on the Python repos page t

[Python-Dev] Typo in PEP-0423

Hi guys, It's said on the Python repos page that this mailing list is the official maintainer of the peps repo , so here I am writing my question. There's is a typo in the PEP-0423 description, in which it is said: "See Registering with the P