Hey pip/virtualenv folks, does one of you control the pypa placeholder account on BitBucket? (it seems possible, given it was created shortly after the Github account). I've been pondering the communicating-with-the-broader-community issue (especially in relation to http://simeonfranklin.com/blog/2013/mar/17/my-pycon-2013-poster/) and I'm thinking that the PSF account is the wrong home on BitBucket for the meta-packaging documentation repo. The PSF has traditionally been hands off relative to the actual development activities, and I don't want to change that. Instead, I'd prefer to have a separate team account, and also talk to Vinay about moving pylauncher and distlib under that account. I can create a different account if need be, but if one of you controls pypa, then it would be good to use that and parallel the pip/virtualenv team account on GitHub. If you don't already control it, then I'll write to BitBucket support to see if the account is actually being used for anything, and if not, if there's a way to request control over it. Failing that, I'll settle for a similar-but-different name, but "pypa" is definitely my preferred option. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Nick: I'm not sure who owns it yet. If it is one of us, then it would need to be a group vote to use the pypa "brand name" like this. I'll try to get all the pypa people to come here and register their opinion. here's my personal thoughts: I understand the motivation to reuse our name, but probably less political to start a new nifty short name. "pypack" or something. "pack" as in a group of people, but also short for "packaging" In the spirit of the blog post, here's the 2 doc projects I'd like to see exist under this new ~"pypack" group account, and be linked to from the main python docs. 1) "Python Packaging User Guide": to replace the unmaintained Hitchhiker's guide, or just get permission to copy that in here and get it up to date and more complete. 2) "Python Packaging Dev Hub": a simpler name to replace "python-meta-packaging" give the ~10-15 people that are actively involved in the various packaging projects and PEPs admin/merge access to help maintain these docs. and then announce this on python-announce as real and supported indirectly by the PSF. people will flock IMO to follow it and contribute with pulls and issues Marcus On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey pip/virtualenv folks, does one of you control the pypa placeholder account on BitBucket? (it seems possible, given it was created shortly after the Github account).
I've been pondering the communicating-with-the-broader-community issue (especially in relation to http://simeonfranklin.com/blog/2013/mar/17/my-pycon-2013-poster/) and I'm thinking that the PSF account is the wrong home on BitBucket for the meta-packaging documentation repo. The PSF has traditionally been hands off relative to the actual development activities, and I don't want to change that.
Instead, I'd prefer to have a separate team account, and also talk to Vinay about moving pylauncher and distlib under that account.
I can create a different account if need be, but if one of you controls pypa, then it would be good to use that and parallel the pip/virtualenv team account on GitHub. If you don't already control it, then I'll write to BitBucket support to see if the account is actually being used for anything, and if not, if there's a way to request control over it. Failing that, I'll settle for a similar-but-different name, but "pypa" is definitely my preferred option.
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
Nick:
I'm not sure who owns it yet. If it is one of us, then it would need to be a group vote to use the pypa "brand name" like this. I'll try to get all the pypa people to come here and register their opinion.
here's my personal thoughts:
I understand the motivation to reuse our name, but probably less political to start a new nifty short name. "pypack" or something. "pack" as in a group of people, but also short for "packaging"
In the spirit of the blog post, here's the 2 doc projects I'd like to see exist under this new ~"pypack" group account, and be linked to from the main python docs.
1) "Python Packaging User Guide": to replace the unmaintained Hitchhiker's guide, or just get permission to copy that in here and get it up to date and more complete. 2) "Python Packaging Dev Hub": a simpler name to replace "python-meta-packaging"
give the ~10-15 people that are actively involved in the various packaging projects and PEPs admin/merge access to help maintain these docs.
and then announce this on python-announce as real and supported indirectly by the PSF.
people will flock IMO to follow it and contribute with pulls and issues
Marcus
I like the python packaging authority brand and think it would be great to put some renewed authority behind it.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
Nick:
I'm not sure who owns it yet. If it is one of us, then it would need to be a group vote to use the pypa "brand name" like this. I'll try to get all the pypa people to come here and register their opinion.
here's my personal thoughts:
I understand the motivation to reuse our name, but probably less political to start a new nifty short name. "pypack" or something. "pack" as in a group of people, but also short for "packaging"
I like the "pypack" name.
In the spirit of the blog post, here's the 2 doc projects I'd like to see exist under this new ~"pypack" group account, and be linked to from the main python docs.
1) "Python Packaging User Guide": to replace the unmaintained Hitchhiker's guide, or just get permission to copy that in here and get it up to date and more complete. 2) "Python Packaging Dev Hub": a simpler name to replace "python-meta-packaging"
give the ~10-15 people that are actively involved in the various packaging projects and PEPs admin/merge access to help maintain these docs.
and then announce this on python-announce as real and supported indirectly by the PSF.
people will flock IMO to follow it and contribute with pulls and issues
Marcus
This sounds like a reasonable plan to me. There definitely need to be a user-centric bunch of docs being maintained someplace. -- Kevin Horn
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
Nick:
I'm not sure who owns it yet.
I ran into Jannis before he left this morning, and he was fairly sure someone decided it would also be a good idea to register it on BitBucket after the GitHub group was set up.
If it is one of us, then it would need to be a group vote to use the pypa "brand name" like this. I'll try to get all the pypa people to come here and register their opinion.
here's my personal thoughts:
I understand the motivation to reuse our name, but probably less political to start a new nifty short name.
A big part of my role at this point is to take the heat for any potentially political or otherwise controversial issues (similar to the way Guido takes the heat for deciding what colour various bikesheds are going to be painted in the core language design - the "BDFL-Delegate" title was chosen advisedly). While we certainly won't do it if you're not amenable as a group, I'll be trying my best to persuade you that it's a good idea to turn your self-chosen name into official reality :)
"pypack" or something. "pack" as in a group of people, but also short for "packaging"
The reason I'd like permission to re-use the name is because I want to be crystal clear that pip *is* the official installer, and virtualenv is the official way to get venv support in versions prior to 3.3, and similar for distlib and pylauncher (of course, I also need to make sure Vinay is OK with that, since those projects currently live under his personal repo). I don't want to ask the pypa to change its name, and I absolutely *do not* want to have people asking whether or not pypa and some other group are the ones to listen to in terms of how to do software distribution "the Python way". I want to have one group that the core Python docs can reference and say "if you need to distribute Python software with and for older Python versions, here's where to go for the latest and greatest tools and advice". If we have two distinct names on GitHub and PyPI, it becomes that little bit harder to convey that pylauncher, pip, virtualenv, distlib are backwards compatible versions of features of Python 3.4+ and officially endorsed by the core development team.
In the spirit of the blog post, here's the 2 doc projects I'd like to see exist under this new ~"pypack" group account, and be linked to from the main python docs.
1) "Python Packaging User Guide": to replace the unmaintained Hitchhiker's guide, or just get permission to copy that in here and get it up to date and more complete. 2) "Python Packaging Dev Hub": a simpler name to replace "python-meta-packaging"
give the ~10-15 people that are actively involved in the various packaging projects and PEPs admin/merge access to help maintain these docs.
Yes, that sounds like a good structure.
and then announce this on python-announce as real and supported indirectly by the PSF.
It's not PSF backing that matters, it's the python-dev backing to add links from the 2.7 and 3.3 versions of the docs on python.org to the user guide on the new site (and probably from the CPython dev guide to the packaging developer hub). That's a fair bit easier for me to sell if it's one group rather than two.
people will flock IMO to follow it and contribute with pulls and issues
Yes, a large part of my goal here is similar to that of the PSF board when Brett Cannon was funded for a couple of months to write the initial version of the CPython developer guide. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
Nick:
I'm not sure who owns it yet.
I ran into Jannis before he left this morning, and he was fairly sure someone decided it would also be a good idea to register it on BitBucket after the GitHub group was set up.
If it is one of us, then it would need to be a group vote to use the pypa "brand name" like this. I'll try to get all the pypa people to come here and register their opinion.
here's my personal thoughts:
I understand the motivation to reuse our name, but probably less political to start a new nifty short name.
A big part of my role at this point is to take the heat for any potentially political or otherwise controversial issues (similar to the way Guido takes the heat for deciding what colour various bikesheds are going to be painted in the core language design - the "BDFL-Delegate" title was chosen advisedly).
While we certainly won't do it if you're not amenable as a group, I'll be trying my best to persuade you that it's a good idea to turn your self-chosen name into official reality :)
"pypack" or something. "pack" as in a group of people, but also short for "packaging"
The reason I'd like permission to re-use the name is because I want to be crystal clear that pip *is* the official installer, and virtualenv is the official way to get venv support in versions prior to 3.3, and similar for distlib and pylauncher (of course, I also need to make sure Vinay is OK with that, since those projects currently live under his personal repo).
I don't want to ask the pypa to change its name, and I absolutely *do not* want to have people asking whether or not pypa and some other group are the ones to listen to in terms of how to do software distribution "the Python way". I want to have one group that the core Python docs can reference and say "if you need to distribute Python software with and for older Python versions, here's where to go for the latest and greatest tools and advice". If we have two distinct names on GitHub and PyPI, it becomes that little bit harder to convey that pylauncher, pip, virtualenv, distlib are backwards compatible versions of features of Python 3.4+ and officially endorsed by the core development team.
In the spirit of the blog post, here's the 2 doc projects I'd like to see exist under this new ~"pypack" group account, and be linked to from the main python docs.
1) "Python Packaging User Guide": to replace the unmaintained Hitchhiker's guide, or just get permission to copy that in here and get it up to date and more complete. 2) "Python Packaging Dev Hub": a simpler name to replace "python-meta-packaging"
give the ~10-15 people that are actively involved in the various packaging projects and PEPs admin/merge access to help maintain these docs.
Yes, that sounds like a good structure.
and then announce this on python-announce as real and supported indirectly by the PSF.
It's not PSF backing that matters, it's the python-dev backing to add links from the 2.7 and 3.3 versions of the docs on python.org to the user guide on the new site (and probably from the CPython dev guide to the packaging developer hub). That's a fair bit easier for me to sell if it's one group rather than two.
people will flock IMO to follow it and contribute with pulls and issues
Yes, a large part of my goal here is similar to that of the PSF board when Brett Cannon was funded for a couple of months to write the initial version of the CPython developer guide.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
And we really need to double down on this kind of pseudo-totalitarian propaganda: http://s3.pixane.com/lenin_packaging.png (only now with more setuptools!)
On 20 March 2013 18:01, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
If it is one of us, then it would need to be a group vote to use the pypa "brand name" like this. I'll try to get all the pypa people to come here and register their opinion.
here's my personal thoughts:
I understand the motivation to reuse our name, but probably less political to start a new nifty short name.
A big part of my role at this point is to take the heat for any potentially political or otherwise controversial issues (similar to the way Guido takes the heat for deciding what colour various bikesheds are going to be painted in the core language design - the "BDFL-Delegate" title was chosen advisedly).
While we certainly won't do it if you're not amenable as a group, I'll be trying my best to persuade you that it's a good idea to turn your self-chosen name into official reality :)
I don't have a problem with the extension of the pypa "brand name" to cover this, and I'm all in favour of pip and virtualenv being sanctioned as the "official" answers in this space, I'd be a little cautious over some of the administrative aspects of such a move, though - consider if there's a sudden rush of people who want to contribute to packaging documents - do we want them to have commit rights on pip? Do we have different people committers on the github and bitbucket repos? Not insurmountable issues, but worth considering. Paul.
FWIW I think if pip and virtualenv are being elevated to a new level of "official", I have no problem with the "pypa" name being used as the umbrella for the next few years' "improve python packaging" efforts. I know I've talked to some people who don't follow packaging closely who thought this was already the case and were surprised to learn that e.g. distribute was not "part of the PyPA." Python packaging already suffers from a "too many similar but slightly different names" problem; let's consolidate rather than exacerbate this problem. I just checked and my Bitbucket account does not have admin control over bitbucket.org/pypa - must be Jannis? Regarding other administrative issues: On 03/20/2013 11:59 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
I don't have a problem with the extension of the pypa "brand name" to cover this, and I'm all in favour of pip and virtualenv being sanctioned as the "official" answers in this space, I'd be a little cautious over some of the administrative aspects of such a move, though - consider if there's a sudden rush of people who want to contribute to packaging documents - do we want them to have commit rights on pip? Do we have different people committers on the github and bitbucket repos? Not insurmountable issues, but worth considering.
We already have multiple "teams" on the github PyPA to allow for different committers on pip vs virtualenv. AFAIK bitbucket also supports per-repo access control. So I don't see any reason this should be a problem: using the name "PyPA" as an umbrella does not imply that there must be a single list of people with equal access to all PyPA repositories. Carl
so, counting the beans... : ) we have 8 "active" pypa people in my count. I think 5 yea votes would make it official I see 3 yea votes so far. I'm willing to change my vote "for the good of the whole" if needed, but I'm still curious to hear how non-pypa feel about this. Marcus
On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
so, counting the beans... : ) we have 8 "active" pypa people in my count. I think 5 yea votes would make it official I see 3 yea votes so far. I'm willing to change my vote "for the good of the whole" if needed, but I'm still curious to hear how non-pypa feel about this. Marcus _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
+0 ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
On 2013-03-20 22:22:40 +0000, Marcus Smith said:
so, counting the beans... : ) we have 8 "active" pypa people in my count. I think 5 yea votes would make it official I see 3 yea votes so far. I'm willing to change my vote "for the good of the whole" if needed, but I'm still curious to hear how non-pypa feel about this.
It's shorter than the "The Fellowship of the Packaging" (And FOTP is not as attractive an acronym) :-). IIUC, Nick plans to do some "official pimping" of pip and venv and wants to use the PyPA brand/organization to do it… I would say +0 in general, and +1 to using PyPA instead of a new name. Seems like a good fit. Alex
Marcus _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-- Alex Clark · http://about.me/alex.clark
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net> wrote:
We already have multiple "teams" on the github PyPA to allow for different committers on pip vs virtualenv. AFAIK bitbucket also supports per-repo access control. So I don't see any reason this should be a problem: using the name "PyPA" as an umbrella does not imply that there must be a single list of people with equal access to all PyPA repositories.
Indeed, we use this on the PSF BitBucket repos - you can define groups to make it easy to give the same set of people access to multiple repos, but there's no requirement that the access controls to a team's repos all be the same. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
Nick:
I'm not sure who owns it yet.
I ran into Jannis before he left this morning, and he was fairly sure someone decided it would also be a good idea to register it on BitBucket after the GitHub group was set up.
Yep, and my memory was correct this time, I did indeed register it at the time. I've given the current PyPA team access. Let me know who else needs access.
If it is one of us, then it would need to be a group vote to use the pypa "brand name" like this. I'll try to get all the pypa people to come here and register their opinion.
here's my personal thoughts:
I understand the motivation to reuse our name, but probably less political to start a new nifty short name.
A big part of my role at this point is to take the heat for any potentially political or otherwise controversial issues (similar to the way Guido takes the heat for deciding what colour various bikesheds are going to be painted in the core language design - the "BDFL-Delegate" title was chosen advisedly).
While we certainly won't do it if you're not amenable as a group, I'll be trying my best to persuade you that it's a good idea to turn your self-chosen name into official reality :)
"pypack" or something. "pack" as in a group of people, but also short for "packaging"
The reason I'd like permission to re-use the name is because I want to be crystal clear that pip *is* the official installer, and virtualenv is the official way to get venv support in versions prior to 3.3, and similar for distlib and pylauncher (of course, I also need to make sure Vinay is OK with that, since those projects currently live under his personal repo).
I don't want to ask the pypa to change its name, and I absolutely *do not* want to have people asking whether or not pypa and some other group are the ones to listen to in terms of how to do software distribution "the Python way". I want to have one group that the core Python docs can reference and say "if you need to distribute Python software with and for older Python versions, here's where to go for the latest and greatest tools and advice". If we have two distinct names on GitHub and PyPI, it becomes that little bit harder to convey that pylauncher, pip, virtualenv, distlib are backwards compatible versions of features of Python 3.4+ and officially endorsed by the core development team.
In the spirit of the blog post, here's the 2 doc projects I'd like to see exist under this new ~"pypack" group account, and be linked to from the main python docs.
1) "Python Packaging User Guide": to replace the unmaintained Hitchhiker's guide, or just get permission to copy that in here and get it up to date and more complete. 2) "Python Packaging Dev Hub": a simpler name to replace "python-meta-packaging"
give the ~10-15 people that are actively involved in the various packaging projects and PEPs admin/merge access to help maintain these docs.
Yes, that sounds like a good structure.
and then announce this on python-announce as real and supported indirectly by the PSF.
It's not PSF backing that matters, it's the python-dev backing to add links from the 2.7 and 3.3 versions of the docs on python.org to the user guide on the new site (and probably from the CPython dev guide to the packaging developer hub). That's a fair bit easier for me to sell if it's one group rather than two.
people will flock IMO to follow it and contribute with pulls and issues
Yes, a large part of my goal here is similar to that of the PSF board when Brett Cannon was funded for a couple of months to write the initial version of the CPython developer guide.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
as it as now, I can create qwcode repos and give access to the Pypa group, but not seeing how to create repos managed by pypa and have them show under that account. I'm less familiar with bitbucket teams? anyone? create them and then transfer to Pypa maybe? or I just don't have the permissions to create? Marcus P.S. closing the loop on bean counting. +1: daniel, paulm, carl, jannis, marcus +0: donald
I'm in favour of using the pypa brand. Paul On 21 March 2013 18:13, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
as it as now, I can create qwcode repos and give access to the Pypa group, but not seeing how to create repos managed by pypa and have them show under that account. I'm less familiar with bitbucket teams? anyone? create them and then transfer to Pypa maybe? or I just don't have the permissions to create?
Marcus
P.S. closing the loop on bean counting. +1: daniel, paulm, carl, jannis, marcus +0: donald
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
+1 for pypa as well. On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Paul Nasrat <pnasrat@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm in favour of using the pypa brand.
Paul
On 21 March 2013 18:13, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
as it as now, I can create qwcode repos and give access to the Pypa group, but not seeing how to create repos managed by pypa and have them show under that account. I'm less familiar with bitbucket teams? anyone? create them and then transfer to Pypa maybe? or I just don't have the permissions to create?
Marcus
P.S. closing the loop on bean counting. +1: daniel, paulm, carl, jannis, marcus +0: donald
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
and pypa needs a cool logo now... On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Paul Nasrat <pnasrat@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm in favour of using the pypa brand.
Paul
On 21 March 2013 18:13, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
as it as now, I can create qwcode repos and give access to the Pypa group, but not seeing how to create repos managed by pypa and have them show under that account. I'm less familiar with bitbucket teams? anyone? create them and then transfer to Pypa maybe? or I just don't have the permissions to create?
Marcus
P.S. closing the loop on bean counting. +1: daniel, paulm, carl, jannis, marcus +0: donald
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
and pypa needs a cool logo now...
If we were happy with something simple, a wheel of cheese bearing the Python logo would be entirely appropriate :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Everybody: Jannis sorted out the permissions. All the existing pypa people have admin access and Nick. (except paul moore, not sure what your account is on bitbucket?) I've created the 2 projects we talked about here: https://bitbucket.org/pypa https://bitbucket.org/pypa/python-packaging-developer-hub - has the initial content from the PSF meta-packaging project - RTD link: https://python-packaging-developer-hub.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ https://bitbucket.org/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide - just has an inital README to make pulls possible - need to decide if we're seeding from the hitchhiker's guide? Marcus
participants (11)
-
Alex Clark -
Carl Meyer -
Daniel Holth -
Dennis Coldwell -
Donald Stufft -
Jannis Leidel -
Kevin Horn -
Marcus Smith -
Nick Coghlan -
Paul Moore -
Paul Nasrat