[Distutils] pip/warehouse feature idea: "help needed"

[Brett Cannon]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:13 PM Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 13, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 11 Apr 2015 12:22, "Alexander Walters" <tritium-list at sdamon.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Is the package index really the best place to put this? This is a
> >>> very social-networking feature for the authoritative repository of
> >>> just about all the third party module, and it feels like either it
> >>> could corrupt the 'sanctity' of the repository (in the absolute
> >>> worst case)
> >>
> >> If you're concerned that this feature might weaken the comforting
> >> illusion that PyPI published software is contributed and maintained by
> >> faceless automatons rather than living, breathing human beings, then
> >> yes, encouraging folks to think more about where the software they use
> >> is coming from would be a large part of the point of adding such a
> >> feature.
> >
> > I can't speak for Alexander, but I'm also −1 to have this *on PyPI*.
> >
> > I'm all for such features existing. What is at issue is whether PyPI is
> > the place to put them.
> >
> > We have been gradually improving the function of PyPI as an
> > authoritative *index* of packages; that's possible because it is a
> > repository of uncontroversial facts, not opinions (i.e. “what is the
> > packaging metadata of this distribution”, “where is its documentation”,
> > “where is its VCS”, etc.).
> >
> >>> I am not saying the PSF shouldn't do this, but is pypi REALLY the
> >>> best part of python.org to put it?
> >>
> >> I personally believe so, yes - sustaining software over the long term is
> >> expensive in people's time, but it's often something we take for
> granted.
> >> The specific example Guido brought up in his keynote was the challenge
> of
> >> communicating a project's openness to Python 3 porting assistance.
> >
> > The people doing the work of maintaining PyPI have said many times in
> > recent years that there just isn't enough person-power to add a whole
> > bunch of features that have been requested. Why would we think
> > moderating a social-networking rating, opinion, discussion, or other
> > non-factual database is something reasonable to ask of the PyPI
> > maintainers?
> >
> > Conversely, if we are under the impression that adding ratings,
> > feedback, reviews, discussion, and other features to PyPI is *not* going
> > to be a massive increase in workload for the maintainers, I think that's
> > a foolish delusion which will be quite costly to the reputation PyPI has
> > recently gained through hard effort to clarify its role.
> >
> > By all means, set up a well-maintained social ecosystem around Python
> > packages. But not on PyPI itself: The Python Package Index is feasible
> > in part because it has a clear and simple job, though, and that's not
> > it.
> >
> > --
> > \                “If you can't hear me sometimes, it's because I'm in |
> >  `\                                      parentheses.” —Steven Wright |
> > _o__)                                                                  |
> > Ben Finney
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>
>
> I don’t see any problem with the general idea of adding features to PyPI to
> enable package maintainers to find more help maintaining specific parts of
> their projects. I do have a problem with expecting the PyPI administrators
> to fill out or otherwise populate this information. Saying “Here’s a place
> you can donate to me” is still a fact, it’s just a more social fact than
> what we currently enable.
>
> I’m kind of down on the idea of linking to CVs or linkedin as part of the
> project metadata because that’s not project specific and is really more
> maintainer specific. I think that particular feature would be better suited
> to some sort of global “Python profile” that could then be linked to from
> PyPI instead of trying to bake it into PyPI itself.
>
> However things like “Looking for New Maintainers / Orphan a Project”,
> or some call to actions on “here are some issues that need fixed” or other
> things doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Particularly the ability to orphan
> a project or look for new maintainers seems like a useful thing to me that
> really can’t live anywhere other than PyPI reasonably.
>

I agree. Even something as simple as a boolean that triggers a banner
saying "this project is looking for a new maintainer" would be useful both
from the perspective of project owners who want to move on or from the
perspective of users who can't tell if a project is maintained based on how
long it has been since a project uploaded a new version (which is why I
think someone suggested sending an annual email asking for a human action
to say "alive and kicking" to help determine if a project is completely
abandoned).

-Brett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20150414/b0334cb1/attachment-0001.html>