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. The other items can live elsewhere if we wanted them to since they would be easy to add to the long_description of a project which would get added to the PyPI page but that has some drawbacks. For things like crowdfunding campaigns the long_description is set when you upload a release, however it’d be useful to have the campaigns update as the campaign progresses (or even ultimately be removed once the campaign has finished). I think an important part of this idea here is that this doesn’t enable anything that authors can’t already do, it just presents the information in a way that is easier for other tooling to take advantage of it as well as allow us to make more informed decisions about how to show it and when to show it without requiring authors to update the long_description of their projects. I think it will also be a strong signal that it’s OK for projects to ask for help (whether of the man power or monetary kind) and will also help lead more projects to be more sustainable for the long term. As far as man power goes, part of that problem is that adding *anything* to the current PyPI code base is a massive headache because there are zero tests and the code base itself is horribly factored and a pain in the ass to work with. However what we’re doing now is rewriting PyPI using a modern framework with modern practices (test coverage, CSS frameworks, etc). When this gets completed adding new features will be easier, especially for people who don’t regularly work on PyPI itself. --- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA