On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Tarek
Ziadé
<tarek@ziade.org>
wrote:
telling us no one that is willing to maintain setuptools is
able to do so. (according to him)
Perhaps there is some confusion or language barrier here: what
I said at that time was that the only people who I already
*knew* to be capable of taking on full responsibility for
*continued development* of setuptools, were not
available/interested in the job, to my knowledge.
Specifically, the main people I had in mind were Ian Bicking
and/or Jim Fulton, both of whom had developed extensions to or
significant chunks of setuptools' functionality themselves,
during which they demonstrated exemplary levels of
understanding both of the code base and the wide variety of
scenarios in which that code base had to operate. They also
both demonstrated conservative, user-oriented design choices,
that made me feel comfortable that they would not do anything
to disrupt the existing user base, and that if they made any
compatibility-breaking changes, they would do so in a way that
avoided disruption. (I believe I also gave Philip Jenvey as
an example of someone who, while not yet proven at that level,
was someone I considered a good potential candidate as well.)
This was not a commentary on anyone *else's* ability, only on
my then-present *knowledge* of clearly-suitable persons and
their availability, or lack thereof.