[Distutils] Colour this bikeshed: Name for setuptools fork
pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Jul 17 19:40:11 CEST 2009
At 06:42 PM 7/17/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>This is an unreasonable position. You are adopting the position that
>only the persons that you know do not have time to maintain it should
>be allowed to do so,
You seem to be confused. I'm only talking about the setuptools
*primary maintainer* role. If said primary maintainer wants to have
a more open patch policy, that'd be their business. (Heck, I'd grant
the role to a *team* of qualified volunteers, if it cut down the load
for said volunteers.)
I've also laid out criteria -- both in the email you're replying to,
and in the past -- for what would make me consider someone for the
role of a primary maintainer.
That nobody has stepped forward doesn't make me unreasonable, it
means there's a lack of qualified and interested volunteers for that position.
I'm not saying that nobody but Jim and Ian and Philip contribute good
patches; maybe half the patches I get are basically good. But
*reviewing* those patches, rejecting the ones that should be
rejected, and hardest of all, coming up with good ways to actually
move the codebase forward, are the tasks that need more-qualified (by
my previously-stated definition) volunteers.
> That has put us through a lot of unnecessary
>pain, just because you are not willing to let go of something you no
>longer are willing to maintain.
Who said I'm not willing to maintain it? All I said is that it's not
very high on my priorities for *unpaid* programming projects. That
means that stuff tends to get fixed only when it interferes with me
personally getting something done.
>Setuptools is dead,
Nope, is's only resting. ;-) At some point it'll move again.
>you are not interested in maintaining it,
Which should not be confused with me not having an *interest* in
maintaining it. (Which is why the name only goes to a qualified
More information about the Distutils-SIG