For what it's worth, for the projects that are almost ready to recommend, but not quite there (like Flit per the discussion on issue 336), would it hurt to have an "provisional" area to the key projects list that makes people aware of the projects without "blessing" them as Key Projects. The whole point of that section of the guide is to raise awareness, yes? Well if something like Flit is almost ready, but pending for a small reason or two, why not publish it anyway with some kind of "provision" label or something and an explanation of why the project is important, but not quite yet ready?

"Provisional" may not be the best term, couldn't think of a better term at the moment.

Just my $0.02.

Randy Syring
Husband | Father | Redeemed Sinner

"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world
and forfeit his soul?" (Mark 8:36 ESV)

On 06/24/2017 09:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

On 24 June 2017 at 18:56, Thomas Kluyver <thomas@kluyver.me.uk> wrote:

For reference, I switched the default upload server for flit in version
0.11.

Oh, I'd also missed that 0.11 published sdists now.

Given that, I think we should start recommending flit for new pure
Python projects (the lack of sdists was the only thing previously
making me hesitant about that), and then add it to the PyPI upload
migration list as well.

It's also missing an entry in the Key Projects list:
https://packaging.python.org/key_projects/

I've filed an issue to discuss that here:
https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/issues/336

We should probably add enscons to the Key Projects list as well, since
that allows folks the option of using a full pip-installable C/C++
build system as an alternative to setuptools/distutils, so I also
filed an issue to discuss that:
https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/issues/337

Cheers,
Nick.