[Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 18:01:03 CEST 2010
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 02.07.2010 16:13, schrieb Tarek Ziadé:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:00 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>>> Isn't it interesting how these rules prohibit open disagreement or criticism
>>> (or even discussion!) of distribute and related matters, but *not*
>> There's a huge gap between criticism + discussion, and the habitual flame
>> of distribute vs setuptools. I think you know what I mean.
>> Feel free to propose some changes on these rules, because I think you would
>> be as happy as I would not to have to deal with flames like that.
> Tarek, as a more or less neutral observer, I have to agree that you seem
> to react a bit sensitive to anything that could be construed as a flame
> against distribute or the decision to fork.
Probaly so, that's why I would like PJE to help building that FAQ, just to make
sure it's not biased.
Because you have to admit that the flames here, whether they are
directed to distribute or setuptools, are unnecessary pain, and higher
than in other lists.
My intent to make rules so Distutils-SIG is peaceful, is a benefit for
> I know the reasons for that decision, and I probably would have done the same,
> but you need to be aware that there is always irritation in the community
> when such a disruptive fork happens, and no small part of that irritation is
> directed against the newcomer. I would try to see this list as on-topic for
> both distribute and setuptools, and let each maintainer/group handle the
> discussion about his/their tool.
> Trying to set up rules for this list isn't helpful; even if your rules don't
> seem like rules, but facts to me. In this case, Anatoly's suggestion to codify
> them in a sort of FAQ document and post them on the web or regularly here seems
> like a good one.
I agree, let's build this.
More information about the Distutils-SIG