From: http://python-packaging-user-guide.readthedocs.org/en/latest/glossary/
Python Packaging Authority (PyPA) PyPA is a working group that maintains many of the relevant projects in Python packaging. They maintain a site at https://www.pypa.io, host projects on github and bitbucket, and discuss issues on the pypa-dev mailing list.
Why are there pypa on github and bitbucket? Is one the master and the other the mirror? Or does one host part A and the other hosts part B? Regards, Thomas Güttler -- http://www.thomas-guettler.de/
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead. On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
From: http://python-packaging-user-guide.readthedocs.org/en/latest/glossary/
Python Packaging Authority (PyPA) PyPA is a working group that maintains many of the relevant projects in Python packaging. They maintain a site at https://www.pypa.io, host projects on github and bitbucket, and discuss issues on the pypa-dev mailing list.
Why are there pypa on github and bitbucket?
Is one the master and the other the mirror?
Or does one host part A and the other hosts part B?
Regards, Thomas Güttler
-- http://www.thomas-guettler.de/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead.
Is there really a need for this? Which parts are on bitbucket and which are on github? Regards, Thomas Güttler -- http://www.thomas-guettler.de/
I'm slowly working on something to transfer the issues, then it might be feasible to move things into one place as people agree. However currently I'm without a personal PC, so no open source work for me -- Ronny Am 5. November 2015 20:27:15 MEZ, schrieb "Thomas Güttler" <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de>:
Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead.
Is there really a need for this?
Which parts are on bitbucket and which are on github?
Regards, Thomas Güttler
-- http://www.thomas-guettler.de/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
MFG Ronny
Am 05.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb Ronny Pfannschmidt:
I'm slowly working on something to transfer the issues, then it might be feasible to move things into one place as people agree.
I don't get you the packing-people. You are working on something. What are you working on? I guess you need to know if the final target is github or bitbucket. What can you work on, if the consensus was not found yet? Or do you want a parallel hosting: issues created in bitbucket get created in github automatically (and vice-versa). Yes, this problem is touring complete and can be solved. It is a waste of time in my eyes. Regards, Thomas Güttler -- http://www.thomas-guettler.de/
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead.
Is there really a need for this?
Is there a need for letting project creators work as they please with the VCS they prefer? Why not if it makes them more efficient maintainers.
Am 05.11.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead.
Is there really a need for this?
Is there a need for letting project creators work as they please with the VCS they prefer? Why not if it makes them more efficient maintainers.
If the projects are unrelated then every maintainer should use what he prefers. If the projects are related and maintained by one group (PyPa), then there should be **one** hosting platform. - my opinion - Regards, Thomas Güttler -- http://www.thomas-guettler.de/
On November 5, 2015 at 3:54:18 PM, Thomas Güttler (guettliml@thomas-guettler.de) wrote:
Am 05.11.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Güttler wrote:
Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead.
Is there really a need for this?
Is there a need for letting project creators work as they please with the VCS they prefer? Why not if it makes them more efficient maintainers.
If the projects are unrelated then every maintainer should use what he prefers. If the projects are related and maintained by one group (PyPa), then there should be **one** hosting platform. - my opinion -
They are loosely affiliated. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
Am 05.11.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead.
Is there really a need for this?
Is there a need for letting project creators work as they please with the VCS they prefer? Why not if it makes them more efficient maintainers.
If the projects are unrelated then every maintainer should use what he prefers. If the projects are related and maintained by one group (PyPa), then there should be **one** hosting platform. - my opinion -
That's super helpful. Thanks
PyPA is very loosely organized and largely volunteer. I do not mind if Mercurial prevents you from submitting a pull request to bdist_wheel. Also before pypa you would have had to visit multiple personal accounts on each service to find the projects. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:22 PM Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmingov@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
Am 05.11.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead.
Is there really a need for this?
Is there a need for letting project creators work as they please with the VCS they prefer? Why not if it makes them more efficient maintainers.
If the projects are unrelated then every maintainer should use what he prefers. If the projects are related and maintained by one group (PyPa), then there should be **one** hosting platform. - my opinion -
That's super helpful. Thanks _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
On November 5, 2015 at 2:27:36 PM, Thomas Güttler (guettliml@thomas-guettler.de) wrote:
Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead.
Is there really a need for this?
Which parts are on bitbucket and which are on github?
PyPA is not really a “top down” organization in a way that we can just dictate what VCS (or VCS hosting) that the sub projects are allowed to use. The only rules PyPA can have are ones that all of the maintainers of the sub projects agree with. Thus, if we want to standardize around one VCS or VCS hosting location we’d need everyone who isn’t conforming to that to change, and if they are OK with changing there is nothing stopping them from moving right now and having a defacto standard immediately. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
Am 05.11.2015 um 20:36 schrieb Donald Stufft:
On November 5, 2015 at 2:27:36 PM, Thomas Güttler (guettliml@thomas-guettler.de) wrote:
Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco:
As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead.
Is there really a need for this?
Which parts are on bitbucket and which are on github?
PyPA is not really a “top down” organization in a way that we can just dictate what VCS (or VCS hosting) that the sub projects are allowed to use. The only rules PyPA can have are ones that all of the maintainers of the sub projects agree with. Thus, if we want to standardize around one VCS or VCS hosting location we’d need everyone who isn’t conforming to that to change, and if they are OK with changing there is nothing stopping them from moving right now and having a defacto standard immediately.
I just ask myself why this was not done from the start: find a consensus. Of course I see that it is very hard to change the current state. It's a mess. Regards, Thomas -- http://www.thomas-guettler.de/
On November 5, 2015 at 3:18:19 PM, Thomas Güttler (guettliml@thomas-guettler.de) wrote:
I just ask myself why this was not done from the start: find a consensus. Of course I see that it is very hard to change the current state.
Basically: Historical reasons. The name “PyPA” was a joke by the pip/virtualenv developers and it was only pip and virtualenv so it was on Github. At some point setuptools started being maintained again but it was in Hg on Bitbucket. Those two projects already existed and packaging started to improve and we sort of adopted the “PyPA” moniker for everything. At that point projects were already in a particular VCS and it was easier to just allow people to pick what VCS they wanted their project to use than attempt to standardize on one. It’s not really that big of a deal though, on the list of things to worry about it’s pretty low on it. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
Basically: Historical reasons. The name “PyPA” was a joke by the pip/virtualenv developers and it was only pip and virtualenv so it was on Github.
here's an anecdote.... per the pypa.io history page, 'Other proposed names were “ianb-ng”, “cabal”, “pack” and “Ministry of Installation”' https://www.pypa.io/en/latest/history/ maybe even funnier that we have a history page, but it's easy to forget all that's happened, so I made one awhile back...
On 5 November 2015 at 20:40, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.pypa.io/en/latest/history/
maybe even funnier that we have a history page, but it's easy to forget all that's happened, so I made one awhile back...
Wow distutils was released in 2000, 15 years ago. I remember when it happened. I feel really old now :-) Paul
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
Basically: Historical reasons. The name “PyPA” was a joke by the pip/virtualenv developers and it was only pip and virtualenv so it was on Github.
here's an anecdote.... per the pypa.io history page, 'Other proposed names were “ianb-ng”, “cabal”, “pack” and “Ministry of Installation”'
https://www.pypa.io/en/latest/history/
maybe even funnier that we have a history page, but it's easy to forget all that's happened, so I made one awhile back...
Oh man, too bad “Ministry of Installation” was not chosen, my favorite! -- Paul Eipper
participants (8)
-
Daniel Holth -
Donald Stufft -
Ian Cordasco -
Marcus Smith -
Paul Eipper -
Paul Moore -
Ronny Pfannschmidt -
Thomas Güttler