Thanks all for your points. Is it fine if I get a Informational PEP going to discuss 'Metadata Repository API'? I will structure it similar to PEP503, but also talk about: - The data exposed today (Specification) -- And possibly call on some PyPI people to correct me where I guess wrong - How mirrors should mirror it - Possible furure enhancements (JSONLD etc.) What else should we have in this PEP? Cooper
On Aug 23, 2017, at 7:04 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 August 2017 at 04:59, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
I don’t have a major opinion on a PEP for the JSON api or not. It depends I guess on whether tools like bandersnatch/devpi/etc want to offer it. Given that this is all brought on by a PR to bandersnatch it appears that there is a reasonable argument that it is something that those tools want, and standardizing it is a good idea.
+1, especially as it will help clarify the required test cases for Warehouse as well (I'm not sure how much of the JSON API has been implemented at this point).
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig