[Distutils] Annoucing distribute project

Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Thu Sep 25 07:52:20 CEST 2008

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com>wrote:

> At 11:56 PM 9/24/2008 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Phillip J. Eby <<mailto:
>> pje at telecommunity.com>pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>> In other words, I don't recommend mixing fork goals.  If the goal is
>> merely to have more-frequent releases of setuptools, it would be better to
>> have a snapshot facility for same, and release dev-tagged eggs.  Conversely,
>> if the goal is to prototype new features, then it doesn't make a lot of
>> sense to advertise it as a stable or up-to-date setuptools.
>> So, my personal hope is that the persons doing the fork will make it clear
>> to their users which it is: unstable feature prototype, or simple release
>> snapshots?  (Where the latter could just as easily be automated.)
>> The point is that the stability you are claiming means that the whole
>> community depends on your actions. The fact that you were busy
>> lately made things even slower.
> Actually, it was the community that slowed down 0.6c9, in that I would have
> released it last month, except that certain contributors were not ready.  As
> it is, I ended up giving up waiting for one of them to come through --
> ironically, it was someone who used to complain a lot about delays.  ;-)
>   That is my whole point. Even if you set up a snapshot facility, the only
>> person that is able to make changes in setuptools is you and only you.
> Sigh.  That's simply not true, as has been discussed here before -- more
> than once.  If you check the commit logs, you'll see that other people HAVE
> made changes to setuptools, and are still quite able to do so.  Jim Fulton
> is already a "blessed" committer, and I'm quite close to blessing P. Jenvey
> (if he wants it).
> And, when somebody else steps up with a series of quality patches (backed
> with pre-reviewed specs in the case of features with significant
> interactions), then that person can get blessed too.

iirc Jim just worked on a particular point back then.

Anyway, that sounds great indeed. But since setuptools is not on the top of
your priority sometimes (you said it wasn't, and we could see it wasn't),
are those people blessed to release it as well ?

I mean, if we have a clear roadmap of the next releases of setuptools, with
dates, and if you are unable to release it yourself, can we count on them to
do so ? If so I'd be more than happy to stop that fork, and to continue
happily to work in the bug tracker if I have a visible roadmap.

>  So I'll make it clear to our users: it will be a project with stable
>> releases, and unstable features in branches, and a trunk to merge
>> everything, like all the open source project out there.
> Great.  Just please make sure that you ask your contributors and users NOT
> to expect support from me, and to not use the setuptools bug tracker for
> non-setuptools issues.  It's not reasonable to expect me to support the fork
> in addition to the original version.
> (I'm also somewhat concerned about what issue the OS vendors will blame me
> or "Python eggs" in general for next, even though I've got nothing to do
> with the fork.)

I understand, and I would prefer not having to fork. But I don't want to be
locked on this particular area because a package depends on some persons
that are busy elsewhere. imho setuptools became a sensible package used by
many developers; so unless it opens a bit I don't see how this is going to
work. It really need to be boosted at this point.


Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org
Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org
Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20080925/f2f8c608/attachment.htm>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list