[Distutils] Colour this bikeshed: Name for setuptools fork

[P.J. Eby]

At 03:12 PM 7/17/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
>P.J. Eby wrote:
>>At 07:38 PM 7/17/2009 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>>>Whether or not the fork is friendly, it is a fork, not a 
>>>continuation. Also, there never really was a “setuptools 1”. I 
>>>think it's only going to be confusing to call this “setuptools 2”.
>>Definitely.  I'd really rather it not be called that, and would 
>>prefer that your versioning scheme not imply a continuation either...
>>*especially* if it's based on the 0.6x branch, which is just about 
>>a dead parrot at this point.
>
>Phil,
>
>How come you couldn't reply to anything other than this?

Because if you RTFM'd, you'd see that I don't respond to private 
email about setuptools.  Had you written via the distutils-SIG, you'd 
have had a better chance of an answer, though it might still have 
taken another week before you got the reply.

(I have odds and ends from distutils-SIG saved in a folder for later 
reply or action...  but the oldest is from February 2007, so two 
weeks isn't that bad!)


>I really don't understand your attitude and lack on communication on 
>what has become so important a package...

Setuptools was something I originally wrote for common requirements 
in my work projects...  then expanded into a funded project to 
provide Chandler with a plugin infrastructure.  These days, I don't 
have time to code on the projects I *enjoy* and *want* to code 
on...  and setuptools as it stands today is not one of those projects.