On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:13 PM Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> writes:
On 11 Apr 2015 12:22, "Alexander Walters" <tritium-list@sdamon.com> wrote:
Is the package index really the best place to put this? This is a very social-networking feature for the authoritative repository of just about all the third party module, and it feels like either it could corrupt the 'sanctity' of the repository (in the absolute worst case)
If you're concerned that this feature might weaken the comforting illusion that PyPI published software is contributed and maintained by faceless automatons rather than living, breathing human beings, then yes, encouraging folks to think more about where the software they use is coming from would be a large part of the point of adding such a feature.
I can't speak for Alexander, but I'm also −1 to have this *on PyPI*.
I'm all for such features existing. What is at issue is whether PyPI is the place to put them.
We have been gradually improving the function of PyPI as an authoritative *index* of packages; that's possible because it is a repository of uncontroversial facts, not opinions (i.e. “what is the packaging metadata of this distribution”, “where is its documentation”, “where is its VCS”, etc.).
I am not saying the PSF shouldn't do this, but is pypi REALLY the best part of python.org to put it?
I personally believe so, yes - sustaining software over the long term is expensive in people's time, but it's often something we take for granted. The specific example Guido brought up in his keynote was the challenge of communicating a project's openness to Python 3 porting assistance.
The people doing the work of maintaining PyPI have said many times in recent years that there just isn't enough person-power to add a whole bunch of features that have been requested. Why would we think moderating a social-networking rating, opinion, discussion, or other non-factual database is something reasonable to ask of the PyPI maintainers?
Conversely, if we are under the impression that adding ratings, feedback, reviews, discussion, and other features to PyPI is *not* going to be a massive increase in workload for the maintainers, I think that's a foolish delusion which will be quite costly to the reputation PyPI has recently gained through hard effort to clarify its role.
By all means, set up a well-maintained social ecosystem around Python packages. But not on PyPI itself: The Python Package Index is feasible in part because it has a clear and simple job, though, and that's not it.
-- \ “If you can't hear me sometimes, it's because I'm in | `\ parentheses.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
I don’t see any problem with the general idea of adding features to PyPI to enable package maintainers to find more help maintaining specific parts of their projects. I do have a problem with expecting the PyPI administrators to fill out or otherwise populate this information. Saying “Here’s a place you can donate to me” is still a fact, it’s just a more social fact than what we currently enable.
I’m kind of down on the idea of linking to CVs or linkedin as part of the project metadata because that’s not project specific and is really more maintainer specific. I think that particular feature would be better suited to some sort of global “Python profile” that could then be linked to from PyPI instead of trying to bake it into PyPI itself.
However things like “Looking for New Maintainers / Orphan a Project”, or some call to actions on “here are some issues that need fixed” or other things doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Particularly the ability to orphan a project or look for new maintainers seems like a useful thing to me that really can’t live anywhere other than PyPI reasonably.
I agree. Even something as simple as a boolean that triggers a banner saying "this project is looking for a new maintainer" would be useful both from the perspective of project owners who want to move on or from the perspective of users who can't tell if a project is maintained based on how long it has been since a project uploaded a new version (which is why I think someone suggested sending an annual email asking for a human action to say "alive and kicking" to help determine if a project is completely abandoned). -Brett