On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 9:55 AM Petr Viktorin <encukou@gmail.com> wrote:
Sadly, "top 4000 PyPI packages" is very biased towards widely-used projects and the public projects -- ones least likely to have issues, because the community (of widely-used projects) or the author of the CPython change (for public projects) can submit fixes early.
I agree it's biased, but it's the only reasonable heuristic that we can use.
It would be sad if CPython focused only on successful, public projects;
but I fear that's where we'll end up if we use this heuristic when evaluating changes.
We can use an N higher than 4000 to account also for public-but-less-succesfull ones. For non public ones, honestly I am not even sure whether we should care: if they are private it's very likely that they are used in a business context, where they surely can spend the money to fix them. I think that the ability of evolving CPython and generally improve the broader Python ecosystem is more important than allowing some companies to save some bucks, but that's just my own personal opinion, of course.
Antonio