At 08:12 PM 4/22/2006 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>If my premises above are mistaken, then the suggestions should be modified
>or discarded. However, I don't see how they conflict at all with a
>consumer rating system.
My point was simply that providing rapid, visible feedback to authors
results i
"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At 05:41 PM 4/22/2006 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>I'm not sure that's what Terry meant - I took it to mean *make the spider
>>part of PyPI itself*.
>
> Which would also be accomplished by using Grig's Cheesecake tool,
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Leaving aside the Perl vs. Py thing, opinions on CPAN seem to be
> diverse -- yes, I've heard people say that this is something that
> Python sorely lacks; but I've also heard from more than one person
> that CPAN su
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Leaving aside the Perl vs. Py thing, opinions on CPAN seem to be
> diverse -- yes, I've heard people say that this is something that
> Python sorely lacks; but I've also heard from more than one person
> that CPAN sucks from a quality perspective. So I think we shouldn't
>
At 05:41 PM 4/22/2006 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>At 12:22 AM 4/22/2006 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>Why can't you remove the heuristic and screen-scrape info-search code
>>>from the easy_install client and run one spider that would check
>>>new/revised PyPI entries, search
At 12:34 PM 4/22/2006 +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > Leaving aside the Perl vs. Py thing, opinions on CPAN seem to be
> > diverse -- yes, I've heard people say that this is something that
> > Python sorely lacks; but I've also heard from more than one person
> > that CPA
I was actually referring to the quality of the code.
On 4/22/06, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> [...]
> >> Python sorely lacks; but I've also heard from more than one person
> >> that CPAN sucks from a quality perspec
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...]
>> Python sorely lacks; but I've also heard from more than one person
>> that CPAN sucks from a quality perspective. So I think we shouldn't
[...]
> (as for the CPAN quality, any public repository will end up being full
> of
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Leaving aside the Perl vs. Py thing, opinions on CPAN seem to be
> diverse -- yes, I've heard people say that this is something that
> Python sorely lacks; but I've also heard from more than one person
> that CPAN sucks from a quality perspective. So I think we shouldn't
On 4/22/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> > 1. Based on comments on c.l.py, the biggest legitimate fact-based (versus
> > personal-taste-based) knock again Python versus, in particular, Perl is the
> > lack of a CPAN-like facility. As I remember, there have even
Terry Reedy wrote:
> 1. Based on comments on c.l.py, the biggest legitimate fact-based (versus
> personal-taste-based) knock again Python versus, in particular, Perl is the
> lack of a CPAN-like facility. As I remember, there have even been a few
> people say something like "I like Python the lan
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> The problem isn't fundamentally a technical one, but a social one. You can
> effect social change through technology, but not by being some random guy
> with a nagging 'bot.
> Seriously, though, posting Cheesecake scores (which include ratings for
> findability of code, u
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 12:22 AM 4/22/2006 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Why can't you remove the heuristic and screen-scrape info-search code
>>from the easy_install client and run one spider that would check
>> new/revised PyPI entries, search for missing info, insert it into PyPI when
>> found
At 12:22 AM 4/22/2006 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>Why can't you remove the heuristic and screen-scrape info-search code
>from the easy_install client and run one spider that would check
>new/revised PyPI entries, search for missing info, insert it into PyPI when
>found (and mark the entry eggified),
Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What *should* happen now instead, is a plan for merging setuptools
> into the distutils for 2.6. That includes making the decisions about
> what "install" and "sdist" should do, and whether backward
> compatibility of internal behaviors should be implic
"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have some general comments which I will not try to tie to specific
quotes.
1. Based on comments on c.l.py, the biggest legitimate fact-based (versus
personal-taste-based) knock again Python versus, in particular, P
I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of confusion out there about what
setuptools is and/or does, at least among Python-Dev folks, so I thought it
might be a good idea to give an overview of its structure, so that people
have a better idea of what is and isn't "magic".
Setuptools began as
17 matches
Mail list logo
