On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Jung <lists@[...].com>  wrote:
[..]
>   - supports too much different versioning schemas. Both
>    schema supported by setuptools and the one proposed
>    by Tarek in some PEP are totally over-engineered.
>    A simple and *enforced* versioning schema is what
>    I want to see.

Unfortunately, as long as we have release candidates, and development versions,
we need a more complex scheme that MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO.

If you think of any ways to simplify PEP 386, please help us,

Last, we can encourage people to use it, but we can't enforced it:
I know people that are happily using dates for their versions, and we
can't forbid
them to push their work on pypi just because of that.

We can try to educate then, but that's their pick at the end I think.

An enterprise PyPI could do enforce it, but not our community PyPI imho

[...]
> 
>  The solution for a better PyPI:
> 
>   - more checks, more restrictions
>   - every package maintainer uploading something to PyPI
>    should have a certain attitude that PyPI is a public
>    resource where the content should met certain
>    quality criteria and where each package has
>    a certain responsibility to Python community.

More checks would be nice, so we can provide QA rates or something similar.

I don't think we should enforce any policy whatsoever though at PyPI.
We can't force people that upload distributions to
comply with some strict QA rules imho (no binary distro allowed if no
sdist is present for example).

Tarek
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@[...].org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig