On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:21 AM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Lennart Regebro <regebro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm -1 on anything that doesn't involve at least a minimal level of human involvement (possibly excepting an initial clean up exercise for projects with no author email)
This is why I basically said I'm OK with automatic deletion after a time if there are no downloadable packages and no contact information. Otherwise the owner should be contacted.
Some people are saying "files uploaded" vs. "downloadable packages". I don't like the "files uploaded" criterion because IMO it's a perfectly valid use case to list a package on PyPI which is only available via external revision control.
Heck, a project that only has planning documents and a reasonably active mailing list should still qualify for PyPI listing, else the original distutils-sig would not have qualified for reserving the name "distutils" on PyPI, before its first release. ;-)
Absolutely. Which gets us back to the "nothing to download, no way of contacting" criteria I originally proposed. :-) //Lennart