[Catalog-sig] Adding trove categories

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Thu Mar 2 23:57:59 CET 2006

At 02:54 PM 3/2/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>Right now the trove categories don't make much sense for Python
>projects; lots of cruft, little granularity around things we actually
>care about.
>And "Topic :: Internet :: WWW/HTTP" is a super-lame category anyway ;)
>It should be "Topic :: Web".  But eh... really, the whole hierarchy and
>taxonomy of packages is stupid.

+1.  Flat is better than nested, and the current categories are insanely 
nested.  5 levels deep to get to the idea of "Message Boards"?  Wow.

That having been said, I'm sure the trove stuff was adopted for a very good 
reason, i.e., to avoid getting bogged down in taxonomy wars before there 
was even a working product.  :)

Now, however, that there are hundreds of projects already on a working 
system, it might be a good idea to see what categories are actually getting 
used, and consider collapsing them to a flatter hierarchy, or maybe even 
just tags.

More information about the Catalog-sig mailing list