[Catalog-sig] Adding trove categories

Bob Ippolito bob at redivi.com
Fri Mar 3 00:14:13 CET 2006

On Mar 2, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:

> 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.

I'd go +1 for (freeform) tags.. the tags people want to use to  
describe their projects should shake out pretty quickly, and it  
prevents us from ever having to request a new topic whenever someone  
comes up with a new idea or web framework :)


More information about the Catalog-sig mailing list