[Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

[Nick Coghlan]

On 18 September 2014 10:08, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps we should make that official policy? Anything in PEP 426 and
> PEP 459 (and other packaging metadata and installation database
> related PEPs) needs to be trialled in distlib/distil before the PEPs
> can be accepted? distlib could operate permanently under a PEP 411
> style "provisional API" guideline, and if folks aren't comfortable
> with "this may break without warning", then they can stick to the
> stable packaging/pip layer.
>
>
> I’m OK with calling out this relationship though I don’t think it should
> be a mandatory thing. I think we’re all adults and able to figure out when
> it makes sense to trial it in distil/distlib or not.

Works for me.

I do suspect we're going to want to trial PEP 426 and the PEP 459
metadata extensions :)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia