<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Stefan Krah <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stefan-usenet@bytereef.org" target="_blank">stefan-usenet@bytereef.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Yuval Greenfield <<a href="mailto:ubershmekel@gmail.com" target="_blank">ubershmekel@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Stefan Krah <<a href="mailto:stefan-usenet@bytereef.org" target="_blank">stefan-usenet@bytereef.org</a>><br>
</div><div>> 1) ordereddict is part of:<br>
</div><div>> 2) pylint supports Python3 (from their README):<br>
><br>
</div><div>> 1) Fixed.<br>
> 2) This is the same issue as with docutils. I believe that either a maintainer<br>
> of PyPI needs to add the trove classifier for them or someone should contact<br>
> Logilab and ask them to add the trove classifier.<br>
<br>
</div>The persons who are running PyPI should only edit individual pages in<br>
exceptional situations (illegal content etc.).<br>
<br>
<br>
I was under the impression that you want to to promote Python3 adoption.<br>
Why don't you contact Logilab and check the rest of the packages manually?<br>
<div><br>
<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I'd already contacted several maintainers of packages with such a request. Starting this project I assumed PyPI would be a reliable source for this information, so I hope you can understand my mindset. I guess the WOS is also good for motivating package owners to fix their classifiers.</div>
<div><br></div><div>On that note, I think PyPI should require python modules to declare which version they're compatible with or tested on.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
If an author has decided to use the classifier, he already accepts<br>
that his package might get less attention in the future. This isn't<br>
an easy decision, so please respect the intent of the classifier and<br>
remove such packages from your site.<br>
<div><div><br><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The WOS's main goal is to measure Python3 adoption in some non-trivial fashion. Total downloads isn't a perfect comparison as many downloads happened in the 8 years Python2 had a head start. Still, I don't know of a better metric. Removing packages that are a gigantic part of the python community would completely defeat the purpose of the site.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If/when Richard implements the statistics call to PyPI, I might be able to implement more metrics.</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Michael Foord <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fuzzyman@gmail.com">fuzzyman@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">...<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>some (additional) manual curation for packages that do support Python 3 will complete the job. <br><div class="im"><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fine, fine, fine.... I added these cute little red triangles to the newly green docutils and pylint. Are there others I should know of?</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div>Yuval Greenfield</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>ps, some of you might prefer this limited edition better: <a href="http://python3wos.appspot.com/?pygmalion=1">http://python3wos.appspot.com/?pygmalion=1</a></div>
</div></div>