[Distutils] The pypa account on BitBucket
dholth at gmail.com
Wed Mar 20 19:06:20 CET 2013
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marcus Smith <qwcode at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure who owns it yet.
> I ran into Jannis before he left this morning, and he was fairly sure
> someone decided it would also be a good idea to register it on
> BitBucket after the GitHub group was set up.
>> If it is one of us, then it would need to be a group vote to use the pypa
>> "brand name" like this.
>> I'll try to get all the pypa people to come here and register their opinion.
>> here's my personal thoughts:
>> I understand the motivation to reuse our name, but probably less political
>> to start a new nifty short name.
> A big part of my role at this point is to take the heat for any
> potentially political or otherwise controversial issues (similar to
> the way Guido takes the heat for deciding what colour various
> bikesheds are going to be painted in the core language design - the
> "BDFL-Delegate" title was chosen advisedly).
> While we certainly won't do it if you're not amenable as a group, I'll
> be trying my best to persuade you that it's a good idea to turn your
> self-chosen name into official reality :)
>> "pypack" or something. "pack" as in a group of people, but also short for
> The reason I'd like permission to re-use the name is because I want to
> be crystal clear that pip *is* the official installer, and virtualenv
> is the official way to get venv support in versions prior to 3.3, and
> similar for distlib and pylauncher (of course, I also need to make
> sure Vinay is OK with that, since those projects currently live under
> his personal repo).
> I don't want to ask the pypa to change its name, and I absolutely *do
> not* want to have people asking whether or not pypa and some other
> group are the ones to listen to in terms of how to do software
> distribution "the Python way". I want to have one group that the core
> Python docs can reference and say "if you need to distribute Python
> software with and for older Python versions, here's where to go for
> the latest and greatest tools and advice". If we have two distinct
> names on GitHub and PyPI, it becomes that little bit harder to convey
> that pylauncher, pip, virtualenv, distlib are backwards compatible
> versions of features of Python 3.4+ and officially endorsed by the
> core development team.
>> In the spirit of the blog post, here's the 2 doc projects I'd like to see
>> exist under this new ~"pypack" group account, and be linked to from the main
>> python docs.
>> 1) "Python Packaging User Guide": to replace the unmaintained Hitchhiker's
>> guide, or just get permission to copy that in here and get it up to date
>> and more complete.
>> 2) "Python Packaging Dev Hub": a simpler name to replace
>> give the ~10-15 people that are actively involved in the various packaging
>> projects and PEPs admin/merge access to help maintain these docs.
> Yes, that sounds like a good structure.
>> and then announce this on python-announce as real and supported indirectly
>> by the PSF.
> It's not PSF backing that matters, it's the python-dev backing to add
> links from the 2.7 and 3.3 versions of the docs on python.org to the
> user guide on the new site (and probably from the CPython dev guide to
> the packaging developer hub). That's a fair bit easier for me to sell
> if it's one group rather than two.
>> people will flock IMO to follow it and contribute with pulls and issues
> Yes, a large part of my goal here is similar to that of the PSF board
> when Brett Cannon was funded for a couple of months to write the
> initial version of the CPython developer guide.
> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG at python.org
And we really need to double down on this kind of pseudo-totalitarian
(only now with more setuptools!)
More information about the Distutils-SIG