Re: [Distutils] Colour this bikeshed: Name for setuptools fork
At 11:12 AM 7/19/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
That's very interesting but you previously said that you needed time and/or someone paying you to continue the work in this area.
No, I said that was needed to get me to work on *setuptools*. Since you guys are doing that for me now, I don't have to think about all the hard, boring work that I felt I had to do first. ;-) If I do "Discovery" at all, it will be because it's fun and pleasing to me, without all the nasty stuff I didn't want to think about needing to be done first. I've wanted to do this sort of refactoring for some time, but felt like I had to take care of stability and all that first. I'm actually kind of hoping that if I make Discovery nice enough, somebody else will refactor setuptools to use it. ;-) (Or just replace setuptools with something better.)
So are you willing to bless us maintaining/working with you with these new packages, or is that going to be a PJE-locked thing again ?
I would suggest that you not try to make plans based on what I am or am not doing, until and unless I've already done it. That way, you can't be disappointed. Since this will be a fun/hobby project for me, I am not at this making ANY commitments about when, what, or how. I do expect to be using Mercurial, though, and accepting feature patches as well as bug fixes.
just a question :
discovery.unpack -- setuptools.archive_util, less distutils dependency
how this will be 'less distutils dependent' ?
I want discovery to have as close to zero dependence on distutils as possible because some OS distributors like to split out "development" tools and I'd prefer they not split up Discovery because it imports from distutils. So if possible, I would like Discovery to be 100% self-contained -- which means not importing distutils.error, distutils.log, etc., or at least having a fallback in the event those modules can't be imported (due to a python-devel package being missing).
2009/7/19 P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com>:
I'm actually kind of hoping that if I make Discovery nice enough, somebody else will refactor setuptools to use it. ;-) (Or just replace setuptools with something better.)
We hope that too. But we don't think Discovery will be nice enough if only you work on it. That is after all the greatness of open source: It enables people from all around the world cooperate to make something much greater than each one can create by himself. We can sure use your experience, insight and help. And you can use our work time. Discovery can become way greater if we work together instead of each by ourself. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:13:25 -0700, Lennart Regebro <regebro@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/7/19 P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com>:
I'm actually kind of hoping that if I make Discovery nice enough, somebody else will refactor setuptools to use it. ;-) (Or just replace setuptools with something better.) We hope that too. But we don't think Discovery will be nice enough if only you work on it. That is after all the greatness of open source: It enables people from all around the world cooperate to make something much greater than each one can create by himself. We can sure use your experience, insight and help. And you can use our work time. Discovery can become way greater if we work together instead of each by ourself.
+1 I'm already sensing some vague inconvenience .. distutils, setuptools, Distribute, Discovery??? Too much for a language that boasts about having only one obvious way to do it. Is it not sensible to combine the efforts put into Distribute and Discovery? Call Discovery 'Distribute 2.0' (future work) while we work on stabilizing setuptools as Distribute 1.0? If it was me - I'd certainly do it and that wouldn't jeopardize the potential fun involved. -srid
At 12:50 PM 7/19/2009 -0700, Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:13:25 -0700, Lennart Regebro <regebro@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/7/19 P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com>:
I'm actually kind of hoping that if I make Discovery nice enough, somebody else will refactor setuptools to use it. ;-) (Or just replace setuptools with something better.) We hope that too. But we don't think Discovery will be nice enough if only you work on it. That is after all the greatness of open source: It enables people from all around the world cooperate to make something much greater than each one can create by himself. We can sure use your experience, insight and help. And you can use our work time. Discovery can become way greater if we work together instead of each by ourself.
+1
I'm already sensing some vague inconvenience .. distutils, setuptools, Distribute, Discovery??? Too much for a language that boasts about having only one obvious way to do it.
Is it not sensible to combine the efforts put into Distribute and Discovery? Call Discovery 'Distribute 2.0' (future work) while we work on stabilizing setuptools as Distribute 1.0?
If it was me - I'd certainly do it and that wouldn't jeopardize the potential fun involved.
Already, just this bit where strangers on the internet discuss how I should spend my spare time for their benefit is making the whole idea less fun. If people want to tell me how I should spend my time, they can pay me. (Otherwise, they can ask nicely, instead of lecturing.)
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:08:01 -0700, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
At 12:50 PM 7/19/2009 -0700, Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:
If it was me - I'd certainly do it and that wouldn't jeopardize the potential fun involved.
Already, just this bit where strangers on the internet discuss how I should spend my spare time for their benefit is making the whole idea less fun. If people want to tell me how I should spend my time, they can pay me. (Otherwise, they can ask nicely, instead of lecturing.)
Ok. As this thread was primarily started to discuss about the various projects (current and potential) we are going through at the moment and their implications on the Python community (not just a particular individual), do you have something to add to the quoted message below?
At 12:50 PM 7/19/2009 -0700, Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:
I'm already sensing some vague inconvenience .. distutils, setuptools, Distribute, Discovery??? Too much for a language that boasts about having only one obvious way to do it.
Is it not sensible to combine the efforts put into Distribute and Discovery? Call Discovery 'Distribute 2.0' (future work) while we work on stabilizing setuptools as Distribute 1.0?
-srid
2009/7/19 P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com>:
Already, just this bit where strangers on the internet discuss how I should spend my spare time for their benefit is making the whole idea less fun. If people want to tell me how I should spend my time, they can pay me. (Otherwise, they can ask nicely, instead of lecturing.)
I don't know if this was also aimed at me or not, but if, i would point out that my intention was to ask, or maybe rather beg, nicely. :) What you *should* do is after all whatever you feel is most likely to improve your well being. Again, should you choose to build this by yourself, that is in no way a problem. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
At 12:50 PM 7/19/2009 -0700, Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:13:25 -0700, Lennart Regebro <regebro@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/7/19 P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com>:
I'm actually kind of hoping that if I make Discovery nice enough, somebody else will refactor setuptools to use it. ;-) (Or just replace setuptools with something better.) We hope that too. But we don't think Discovery will be nice enough if only you work on it. That is after all the greatness of open source: It enables people from all around the world cooperate to make something much greater than each one can create by himself. We can sure use your experience, insight and help. And you can use our work time. Discovery can become way greater if we work together instead of each by ourself.
+1
I'm already sensing some vague inconvenience .. distutils, setuptools, Distribute, Discovery??? Too much for a language that boasts about having only one obvious way to do it.
Is it not sensible to combine the efforts put into Distribute and Discovery? Call Discovery 'Distribute 2.0' (future work) while we work on stabilizing setuptools as Distribute 1.0?
If it was me - I'd certainly do it and that wouldn't jeopardize the potential fun involved.
Already, just this bit where strangers on the internet discuss how I should spend my spare time for their benefit is making the whole idea less fun. If people want to tell me how I should spend my time, they can pay me. (Otherwise, they can ask nicely, instead of lecturing.) Nobody cares about how you spend your spare time. The point is that the
On 19.07.09 22:08, P.J. Eby wrote: maintainer is sitting like a clucking hen on their eggs without giving them any care and without letting other people care about them. So we are at the point where the hen must go in order to save the eggs or it must be shot in order proceed for the sake of the community. The discussion about a qualified maintainer is just absurd. All people involved in this issue for bring setuptools forward have a strong record in managing packages and a deep understanding in the setuptools problem. Please don't treat highly respected members of the Zope and Plone world like idiots. Andreas
On 19.07.09 22:08, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 12:50 PM 7/19/2009 -0700, Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:13:25 -0700, Lennart Regebro <regebro@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/7/19 P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com>:
>> I'm actually kind of hoping that if I make Discovery nice enough, >> somebody >> else will refactor setuptools to use it. ;-) (Or just replace >> setuptools >> with something better.)
We hope that too. But we don't think Discovery will be nice enough if only you work on it. That is after all the greatness of open source: It enables people from all around the world cooperate to make something much greater than each one can create by himself. We can sure use your experience, insight and help. And you can use our work time. Discovery can become way greater if we work together instead of each by ourself.
+1
I'm already sensing some vague inconvenience .. distutils, setuptools, Distribute, Discovery??? Too much for a language that boasts about having only one obvious way to do it.
Is it not sensible to combine the efforts put into Distribute and Discovery? Call Discovery 'Distribute 2.0' (future work) while we work on stabilizing setuptools as Distribute 1.0?
If it was me - I'd certainly do it and that wouldn't jeopardize the potential fun involved.
Already, just this bit where strangers on the internet discuss how I should spend my spare time for their benefit is making the whole idea less fun. If people want to tell me how I should spend my time, they can pay me. (Otherwise, they can ask nicely, instead of lecturing.)
Nobody cares about how you spend your spare time. The point is that the maintainer is sitting like a clucking hen on their eggs without giving them any care and without letting other people care about them. So we are at the point where the hen must go in order to save the eggs or it must be shot in order proceed for the sake of the community. The discussion about a qualified maintainer is just absurd. All people involved in this issue for bring setuptools forward have a strong record in managing packages and a deep understanding in the setuptools problem. Please don't treat highly respected members of the Zope and Plone world like idiots. Andreas -- ZOPYX Ltd. & Co KG \ ZOPYX & Friends Charlottenstr. 37/1 \ The experts for your Python, Zope and D-72070 Tübingen \ Plone projects www.zopyx.com, info@zopyx.com \ www.zopyx.de/friends, friends@zopyx.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-Publishing, Python, Zope & Plone development, Consulting
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Andreas Jung<lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Please don't treat highly respected members of the Zope and Plone world like idiots.
Please show the person who actually gave us a working packaging system more respect. Jim -- Jim Fulton
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Andreas Jung<lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Please don't treat highly respected members of the Zope and Plone world like idiots.
Please show the person who actually gave us a working packaging system more respect.
Working, except for the bugs and the stubborn refusal to let anyone help fix them without forking the project... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
On 20.07.09 12:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Andreas Jung<lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Please don't treat highly respected members of the Zope and Plone world like idiots.
Please show the person who actually gave us a working packaging system more respect. I do respect his work on setuptools. I do not respect all the circumstances that led to the necessary fork.
Andreas
2009/7/20 Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com>:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Andreas Jung<lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
Please don't treat highly respected members of the Zope and Plone world like idiots.
Please show the person who actually gave us a working packaging system more respect.
I agree with both these statements. In general, and that's one of the reasons that I promised myself never to join this list again, I feel that packaging discussions have a tendency to be severely lacking in both mutual respect and ability to listen to others. This is not limited to this list, and it seems to affect people who are normally the friendliest ever. I don't know why that is, and I don't know if we can do something about it. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
participants (7)
-
Andreas Jung -
Chris Withers -
Jim Fulton -
Lennart Regebro -
P.J. Eby -
Sridhar Ratnakumar -
zopyxfilter＠gmail.com