Am 07.11.09 17:13, schrieb Tarek Ziad�:
>  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.
>    

ACK for a more necessity of one more complex versioning schema in general
(but we don't need to support all variants) but we don't need to support
dev packages on PyPI - that's why a stronger version check should be
enforced.
>  [...]
>    
> > "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.
> 
>    
I think your mother (and most others) are smart enough to understand
and support a simple versioning schema. Bringing it to the point in
different way: "community" does not mean anarchy. Package maintainers
have a lot of freedom but as said also a responsibility for their
software  - otherwise redeclare PyPI as package t***** (I mentioned the
word already)


>  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)
>    
I don't care about subcommunities at this point. PyPI is a central
resource to Python. It is essentional for my daily work. It is essential
for me that the packages having reasonable metadata. It is essential
for me that the packages are available all the time. A certain quality
and standards are especially essential to non-professional Python
users and developers - nothing is more frustrating for those
people than dealing with non-functional packages, undocumented packages or
packages of pre-alpha quality.

Andreas