Ethan Furman <ethan <at> stoneleaf.us> writes:
On 09/19/2014 04:13 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
I **strongly** concur with James here. This has flagrantly violated my
I would much rather packages not be reclaimed than need to think about
I trust the PyPI maintainers to do it.
Having PyPI become full of cruft is not a tenable situation.
What is the problem with "cruft" exactly?
I'm opposed to the idea that a package may be "transferred" to someone else without any explicit authorization from the original maintainer(s) (or author(s)). It is not a matter of waiting time or tools. It is morally unacceptable.
If you want to maintain a package and the maintainer doesn't reply, there is a solution: fork the package (under a new name).
If you don't want to see "stale" packages, there is a solution: build an optional filter into PyPI that only shows packages which have received an update in the last 12/24/36 months.