[Distutils] Colour this bikeshed: Name for setuptools fork

[P.J. Eby]

At 06:42 PM 7/17/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>This is an unreasonable position. You are adopting the position that
>only the persons that you know do not have time to maintain it should
>be allowed to do so,

You seem to be confused.  I'm only talking about the setuptools 
*primary maintainer* role.  If said primary maintainer wants to have 
a more open patch policy, that'd be their business.  (Heck, I'd grant 
the role to a *team* of qualified volunteers, if it cut down the load 
for said volunteers.)

I've also laid out criteria -- both in the email you're replying to, 
and in the past -- for what would make me consider someone for the 
role of a primary maintainer.

That nobody has stepped forward doesn't make me unreasonable, it 
means there's a lack of qualified and interested volunteers for that position.

I'm not saying that nobody but Jim and Ian and Philip contribute good 
patches; maybe half the patches I get are basically good.  But 
*reviewing* those patches, rejecting the ones that should be 
rejected, and hardest of all, coming up with good ways to actually 
move the codebase forward, are the tasks that need more-qualified (by 
my previously-stated definition) volunteers.


>  That has put us through a lot of unnecessary
>pain, just because you are not willing to let go of something you no
>longer are willing to maintain.

Who said I'm not willing to maintain it?  All I said is that it's not 
very high on my priorities for *unpaid* programming projects.  That 
means that stuff tends to get fixed only when it interferes with me 
personally getting something done.


>Setuptools is dead,

Nope, is's only resting.  ;-)  At some point it'll move again.


>you are not interested in maintaining it,

Which should not be confused with me not having an *interest* in 
maintaining it.  (Which is why the name only goes to a qualified 
replacement figurehead.)