On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Andreas Jung <lists@[...].com>  wrote:
[..]
> 
>  Do we need/want development on PyPI? At least not me.
> 
>  MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO.PICO + |a-c]1..N
> 
>  should be good enough.

PEP 386 is about providing the version scheme so we can compare versions
in Distutils when we want to know if a dependency is met (like what
setuptools does).

So its wider than PyPI : people need to be able to compare development
versions as well.
So for example, zc.buildout can rely on it for your daily work.

[...]
> 
>  "community" does not imply that we can not agree on certain rules and
>  standards
>  for PyPI - otherwise PyPI remains as it sometimes appears - an unflashed
>  package toilet. Python as a quality programming language needs a package
>  repository with some minimum standards - I completely disagree with
>  "community"
>  as a synonym for "we must make everyone happy".
> 

But the philosophy of Python is to provide a multi-paradigm language I think,
without forcing any strong rule like this. (unlike Java I guess)

My mother (sorry that's the example I have in my mind) is using Python
in her university
math /statistics lab, and they don't really care about QA.

But she might push her software at PyPI one day. She won't if its
rejected because
she doesn't follow a version scheme, or push a binary release rather
than a source one.

Its good too have industrial-strength conventions, so we can build
industrial-level applications,
but I think we need to be careful about the ticket entry for PyPI.

Wouldn't be better to set these enforcements in subcommunity like
plone.org where it would
make a lot of sense to enforce QA for plone packages ?
(plone.org has PyPI support)

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