I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard
library' built in within it. In my view it must not be called as a 'library'
at all. what it does
is like a 'bunch of built-in programs ready-made to do stuff'.
Lets see what a 'library' does:
1. offers books for customers
1.1 l
Why are there comments on PyPI? Moreso, why are there comments which I
cannot control as a package author on my very own packages? That's
just absurd.
It's *my* package, and so should be *my* choice if I want user input
or not.
And ratings? I thought it was the Python Package Index, not t
Sriram Srinivasan wrote:
I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard
library' built in within it. In my view it must not be called as a
'library' at all. what it does
is like a 'bunch of built-in programs ready-made to do stuff'.
Lets see what a 'library' does:
1. offe
>
> I don't really understand your requirements, but it sound like you want a
> package management system. The standard library just provides a standard set
> of tools (it is the books not the book management system - although part of
> what you want is in the standard library in the form of distut
On Thursday 12 November 2009, Sriram Srinivasan wrote:
> I don't know if you have used Dev-C++. It has a 'package management'
> mechanism for the standard libraries.
I disagree. It has a package management system for libraries, not for the
standard libraries. The point is that the Python standard
> I disagree. It has a package management system for libraries, not for the
> standard libraries. The point is that the Python standard library is
> supplied
> as part of Python itself, as is e.g. the C++ standard library as part of a
> C++ compiler.
>
>
standard libraries i meant the standard libr
On 2009-11-12, at 1136, Sriram Srinivasan wrote:
standard libraries i meant the standard libraries used.
and what i asked for is for(in python) both the standard-libraries
and the standard libraries used.
c the term (intra and inter library management) which includes the
default standard li
ok let me make it more clear..
forget how you use python now.. i am talking about __futuristic__
python programming.
these are just my ideas.. more over i can say imaginations.
there is no more python2.x or python3.x or python y.x releases. there
is only updates of python and standard library say
Oh, I see.
use library 1.1.5
versus
use library 1.1.6 #thats all now i get all features
That's part of pkg_resources. It looks like this:
pkg_resources.require("mylibrary==1.1.6")
import mylibrary
There are plenty of other ways to manage this, most people use systems
like virtualenv o
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
> There are plenty of other ways to manage this, most people use systems
> like virtualenv or buildout, but that's a discussion for the normal
> python mailing list, not the development one.
Indeed. Please take this to python-list (it isn't even a coherent enough
suggestion f
On 09:44 am, lud...@lericson.se wrote:
Why are there comments on PyPI? Moreso, why are there comments which I
cannot control as a package author on my very own packages? That's
just absurd.
It's *my* package, and so should be *my* choice if I want user input
or not.
And ratings? I thought i
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:44:32 pm Ludvig Ericson wrote:
> Why are there comments on PyPI? Moreso, why are there comments which
> I cannot control as a package author on my very own packages? That's
> just absurd.
No, what's absurd is thinking that the act of publishing software
somehow gives you th
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:44:32 pm Ludvig Ericson wrote:
>> Why are there comments on PyPI? Moreso, why are there comments which
>> I cannot control as a package author on my very own packages? That's
>> just absurd.
>
> No, what's absurd is t
On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
is broken. I've taken the stance of not publishing things to PyPi
until A> I find the time to contribute to make it better or B> It
changes.
That's distressing. For better or
2009/11/12 Sriram Srinivasan :
> In python we have the PyPI which is equivalent to the http://devpacks.org
> but in PyPI the packages are all user made applications.
> What I want is similar to PyPI but for the python standard libraries, so
> that they (libraries) are as add-on as possible.
They a
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:44:32 pm Ludvig Ericson wrote:
>>> Why are there comments on PyPI? Moreso, why are there comments which
>>> I cannot control as a package author on my very own
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>> Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
>> is broken. I've taken the stance of not publishing things to PyPi
>> until A> I find the time to contribute to make i
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>>> Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
>>> is broken. I've taken the stance of not publishing thing
On 03:01 pm, dalc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Jesse Noller
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Barry Warsaw
wrote:
On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
is broken. I've taken the sta
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:44:32 pm Ludvig Ericson wrote:
>> Why are there comments on PyPI? Moreso, why are there comments which
>> I cannot control as a package author on my very own packages? That's
>> just absurd.
>
> No, what's absurd is t
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>>> Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
>>> is broken. I've taken the stance of not publishing things
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:44:32 pm Ludvig Ericson wrote:
>> Why are there comments on PyPI? Moreso, why are there comments which
>> I cannot control as a package author on my very own packages? That's
>> just absurd.
>
> No, what's absurd is t
Guido van Rossum python.org> writes:
>
> If you were to ask me, the people arguing against ratings and user
> comments are fighting a losing battle. If they had an iPhone or
> Android phone (or some other device with an "app store" kind of place
> to find downloads) they'd know the value (for pro
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> If you were to ask me, the people arguing against ratings and user
> comments are fighting a losing battle. If they had an iPhone or
> Android phone (or some other device with an "app store" kind of place
> to find downloads) they'd know
filed: http://bugs.python.org/issue7311
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> Hello Zhang Chiyuan,
>
> Can you file a bug on the Python issue tracker please:
>
> http://bugs.python.org
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael Foord
>
> Zhang Chiyuan wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm using Beautifu
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> (more seriously, the problem with a comment system is that once it takes off,
> you need a whole array of functionalities to maintain a good S/N ratio. Just
> allowing people to "comment" without any sort of moderation, filtering or
> commu
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:44:32 pm Ludvig Ericson wrote:
> >> Why are there comments on PyPI? Moreso, why are there comments which
> >> I cannot control as a package author on my ver
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, David Stanek wrote:
> Where is the code for PyPi? I took a quick look and didn't turn up anything.
https://svn.python.org/packages/trunk/pypi/
I've already started on a patch to make comments an option that
package maintainers could turn on or off, but I don't w
On 12 Nov 2009, at 17:31 , Jesse Noller wrote:
>
> But before we even did those; why not have mandatory links for entries
> to bug trackers, mailing lists, source repositories, etc? I'm saying
> saying this doesn't seem well thought out, and the current
> implementation is broken by design. Of cou
Nobody is claiming right to censor what people say about their software.
This is the Internet. There are blogs. Google and other search engines
find blogs quickly, and people who agree with the viewpoints expressed link
to them thus making the blog postings more visible. There are countless
oth
[Jacob Kaplan-Moss]
I've already started on a patch to make comments an option that
package maintainers could turn on or off, but I don't want to waste
any more time fighting this code unless I have some assurance it'll be
checked in.
I support your efforts.
Raymond
_
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, David Stanek
> wrote:
> > Where is the code for PyPi? I took a quick look and didn't turn up
> anything.
>
> https://svn.python.org/packages/trunk/pypi/
>
> I've already started on a patch to make comme
FYI: I've written an article for Linux Weekly News on the moratorium &
related issues.
The article is subscribers-only for a week, but here's a free link:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/361266/ef88bdbed5369800/
If you find this sort of thing useful/interesting, please consider
subscribing to LWN.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:40:10PM -0500, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> FYI: I've written an article for Linux Weekly News on the moratorium &
> related issues.
>
> The article is subscribers-only for a week, but here's a free link:
>
> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/361266/ef88bdbed5369800/
>
> If you
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
is broken. I've taken the stance of not publishing things to PyPi
until A> I find the time to contribute to make it better or B> It
changes.
That's distres
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>>> Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
>>> is broken. I've taken the stance of not publishing things to PyPi
>>> until A> I find th
Intention = precision => for a better PyPI
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>>
Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and ot
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> I would say that publishers disagree -- they seem to really like
> adding "social" stuff to their book announcement service. See e.g.
> Amazon (which combines all functions: announcement/promotion,
> ordering/download, review/comments/r
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> I'd not trust a package without a bug tracker, mailing list or link to
> the source a lot sooner than something without comments and ratings.
Yeah, but you're not exactly an average user. Most users don't know
how to use a bug tracker. Also,
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> I'd not trust a package without a bug tracker, mailing list or link to
>> the source a lot sooner than something without comments and ratings.
>
> Yeah, but you're not exactly an av
> I am not an expert, I am just another python learner. These are just my
> views on the state of the standard libraries and to
> make them state-of-the-art..! ;)
If I understand correctly, you want the (current) standard library to be
separated from the Python implementation, and available separa
> If you were to ask me, the people arguing against ratings and user
> comments are fighting a losing battle. If they had an iPhone or
> Android phone (or some other device with an "app store" kind of place
> to find downloads) they'd know the value (for prospective downloaders)
> of ratings and co
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Yeah, but you're not exactly an average user. Most users don't know
> how to use a bug tracker.
But they do know how to use mailing lists. Or IRC chats. Or support forums.
Those places have (for many projects) tens, hundreds, or even
tho
> (more seriously, the problem with a comment system is that once it takes off,
> you need a whole array of functionalities to maintain a good S/N ratio. Just
> allowing people to "comment" without any sort of moderation, filtering or
> community building doesn't work)
The current rate is roughly
Sriram Srinivasan schrieb:
> I guess why every programming language has some kind of a 'standard
> library' built in within it. In my view it must not be called as a
> 'library' at all. what it does
> is like a 'bunch of built-in programs ready-made to do stuff'.
>
> Lets see what a 'library' does
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I am not an expert, I am just another python learner. These are just my
>> views on the state of the standard libraries and to
>> make them state-of-the-art..! ;)
>
> If I understand correctly, you want the (current) standard library to
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:44 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I'm going to take a poll RSN, and see what the majority of users
> think (rather than their vocal fraction). Then we can see what to do
> about it.
Or (ironically) the vocal fraction can write scripts to stuff the ballot. :-)
--
--Gui
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Yeah, but you're not exactly an average user. Most users don't know
>> how to use a bug tracker.
>
> But they do know how to use mailing lists. Or IRC chats. Or support forums.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> (more seriously, the problem with a comment system is that once it takes off,
>> you need a whole array of functionalities to maintain a good S/N ratio. Just
>> allowing people to "comment" without any sort of moderation, filtering or
>>
Intention = personal opinion => for a better PyPI
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>> I'd not trust a package without a bug tracker, mailing list or link to
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:30:27AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> etc.). Maybe there should be a standard "social app" that you can just
> customize for a specific purpose. Sounds like an interesting project,
> actually.
For comments, haloscan and disqus are third-party comment-hosting
services;
>> The current rate is roughly 1 comment per day (with peaks of 5
>> comments), so it takes of rather slowly.
>>
>
> Until spammers decide to attack...
Sure. However, spambots have avoided PyPI so far, and manual spamming
only had one incident (of somebody creating dozens of packages on a
single
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 08:25 -0600, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>
> That's distressing. For better or worse PyPI is the central
> repository of 3rd party packages. It should be easy, desirable, fun
> and socially encouraged to get your packages there.
Its already socially encouraged: heck, if pac
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
is broken. I've taken the stance of not publishing things to PyPi
until A> I
Barry Warsaw writes:
> On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I agree with him. As implemented, I *and others* think this
> > is broken. I've taken the stance of not publishing things to PyPi
> > until A> I find the time to contribute to make it better or B> It
> > change
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I personally think a ratings system can be useful, but you should be
> able to opt-out of it if you want. Or just write such awesome software
> that the bogus bad reviews will be buried by an avalanche of kudos.
One of the problems I have with online rating/comment systems f
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I'm going to take a poll RSN, and see what the majority of users
think (rather than their vocal fraction). Then we can see what to do
about it.
Yes please! I've been silently waiting for this and have (surprisingly
for me!) managed to resist joining in the rant.
I'm of
Arc Riley wrote:
It would be more useful to provide a PyPI mechanism to publish a link to
file bugs on the project's own website and leave project ratings the
work of other sites such as Ohloh.
Yes, I really wish I could include all the links in the sections on,
say, http://www.simplistix.co.
Masklinn writes:
> On 12 Nov 2009, at 17:31 , Jesse Noller wrote:
> > But before we even did those; why not have mandatory links for
> > entries to bug trackers, mailing lists, source repositories, etc?
> > I'm saying saying this doesn't seem well thought out, and the
> > current implementation i
A.M. Kuchling amk.ca> writes:
>
> For comments, haloscan and disqus are third-party comment-hosting
> services; http://redalt.com/blog/comment-services has a longer list.
They are horrible for page loading times; and besides, I don't know how you can
trust such third-party to provide an importan
Chris Withers wrote:
> I'm quite okay with having a banner
> saying "This package has opted not to receive comments".
Particularly if the developer is able to add a prominent link to the
project's own support site or mailing list.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Bri
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 at 15:42, Terry Reedy wrote:
Part of the pypi problem is a startup problem of initially low numbers. If
the only people who bother to log in to rate are the disgruntled, then the
ratings/reviews will be biased. I wonder how many of the people promoting the
new feature have t
On Nov 12, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
I think Jesse's point (or, if he's not willing to claim it, my
point) is
that, compared to the mandatory comment system, it makes much *more*
sense to have a mandatory field for “URL to the BTS for this project”.
One might look at the "competiti
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
>> I'm quite okay with having a banner
>> saying "This package has opted not to receive comments".
>
> Particularly if the developer is able to add a prominent link to the
> project's own support site or mailing list.
It's really puzzling that people alw
> Part of the pypi problem is a startup problem of initially low numbers.
> If the only people who bother to log in to rate are the disgruntled,
> then the ratings/reviews will be biased.
Fortunately, that isn't actually the case. The majority of comments is
positive (from scanning the full list o
> At least it can be expected that in many cases project maintainers will
> *want* to use a conventional BTS, VCS, discussion forum, etc. So that
> route makes more sense than a mandatory comment system outside the
> project maintainer's control, while providing the user-participation
> that is the
R. David Murray schrieb:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 at 15:42, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Part of the pypi problem is a startup problem of initially low numbers. If
>> the only people who bother to log in to rate are the disgruntled, then the
>> ratings/reviews will be biased. I wonder how many of the peopl
On 12 Nov 2009, at 22:53 , James Y Knight wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> I think Jesse's point (or, if he's not willing to claim it, my point) is
>> that, compared to the mandatory comment system, it makes much *more*
>> sense to have a mandatory field for “URL to the BT
Guido van Rossum writes:
> Maybe that's an example of a user who doesn't know how to use those
> support channels? I know I wouldn't bother with IRC even if it was the
> only way to get in touch with users, I hate it with a vengeance.
> (Though arguably I'm a special case -- whenever I show up ev
On Nov 12, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Masklinn wrote:
On 12 Nov 2009, at 22:53 , James Y Knight wrote:
On Nov 12, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
I think Jesse's point (or, if he's not willing to claim it, my
point) is
that, compared to the mandatory comment system, it makes much *more*
sense to
> Except when they have a problem, and then they are likely to only complain
> through the comments.
As this theory has been repeated often here, I decided to go through all
comments and classify them, as:
- good: (overall) positive evaluation (possibly including minor
criticism/wishes)
- bad: n
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > Particularly if the developer is able to add a prominent link to the
> > project's own support site or mailing list.
>
> It's really puzzling that people always assume that people would use
> comments primarily to get help, or to report problems
On 12 Nov 2009, at 23:44 , James Y Knight wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Masklinn wrote:
>> On 12 Nov 2009, at 22:53 , James Y Knight wrote:
>>> On Nov 12, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
I think Jesse's point (or, if he's not willing to claim it, my point) is
that, compared to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> I'd not trust a package without a bug tracker, mailing list or link to
>> the source a lot sooner than something without comments and ratings.
>
> Yeah, but you're not
Ben Finney wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>
>> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> Particularly if the developer is able to add a prominent link to the
>>> project's own support site or mailing list.
>> It's really puzzling that people always assume that people would use
>> comments primarily to get help
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>
> I think you are missing the point of the commenting system: these
> comments are *not* directed towards the package author. Instead, they
> are directed towards fellow users of the package. For this kind of
> message, a bugtracker is completely inappropria
On 13 Nov 2009, at 00:00 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Then why not simply add a sentence or two before the comment form warning that
> the comment system is not meant to ask for help, support or debugging about
> the
> package?
Because users don't read warnings. The warning will therefore be promp
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Except when they have a problem, and then they are likely to only complain
>> through the comments.
>
> As this theory has been repeated often here, I decided to go through all
> comments and classify them, as:
> - good: (overall) positi
Masklinn masklinn.net> writes:
>
> On 13 Nov 2009, at 00:00 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > Then why not simply add a sentence or two before the comment form warning
that
> > the comment system is not meant to ask for help, support or debugging about
the
> > package?
> Because users don't read
> And how many of the "good" comments are astroturfers?
If I understand that term correctly, it's about disguise: how would
I be able to answer that question?
> What's so bad about package maintainers from having an opt-out?
PyPI is not just (and perhaps not even primarily) there for the package
Antoine Pitrou writes:
> Masklinn masklinn.net> writes:
> > Because users don't read warnings.
>
> I don't like assuming users are idiots.
You don't have to. You need only assume that users are busy, focussed on
a task (“leave feedback”), and will therefore unconsciously filter out
*anything* t
On 13 Nov 2009, at 00:15 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Masklinn masklinn.net> writes:
>>
>> On 13 Nov 2009, at 00:00 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>>
>>> Then why not simply add a sentence or two before the comment form warning
> that
>>> the comment system is not meant to ask for help, support or debugg
When SourceForge started having comments and ratings, I was a
little upset at having poor negative comments there (like "not
work!"). But after it has been running for a while it appears useful.
I suppose it helps that Scintilla has 88% thumbs up from 134
respondents. Because there is voting on
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>> I think you are missing the point of the commenting system: these
>> comments are *not* directed towards the package author. Instead, they
>> are directed towards fellow users of the package. For this kind of
>> message, a bugtracker
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> PyPI is not just (and perhaps not even primarily) there for the
> package authors, but for the package users (and not surprisingly, it's
> primarily the package authors who ask for banning the user opinions).
No-one here is asking for “banning the user opinions”. As a
Masklinn writes:
> Users (which includes e.g. language users) tend to be lazy, rather
> than stupid.
I've found it useful to realise that, from the perspective of a
program/website/feedback form, etc., the user has a tiny brain: but
that's only because the user's big brain is *not* solely dedica
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:44:30 +0100, Xavier Morel
wrote:
> If pypi one day has a CPAN-style buildbot farm allowing it to test the
> package on any platform under the sun, that can be included, the tests
can
> be included as well but given the number of testing solutions (and
coverage
> discovery as
David Lyon wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:44:30 +0100, Xavier Morel
> wrote:
>> If pypi one day has a CPAN-style buildbot farm allowing it to test the
>> package on any platform under the sun, that can be included, the tests
> can
>> be included as well but given the number of testing solutions (
> Users (which includes e.g. language users) tend to be lazy, rather than
> stupid.
Then they likely won't comment on PyPI. To do so, they have to setup an
account (which most don't have). They can't post comments without an
account.
Regards,
Martin
__
> Why can't we just disable it until we can come up with a better system
> that finds a balance between the rights of maintainers, and those of
> the user?
Because I want to wait for the outcome of the poll first.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing
On 13 Nov 2009, at 00:35 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Masklinn masklinn.net> writes:
>>
>> And then user will probably ask why you're not answering the question since
>> you're here anyway, or might go
>> as far as telling you that if you're not going to help you might as well not
>> answer.
> As I
On 13 Nov 2009, at 00:34 , Jesse Noller wrote:
> That's because as an author/maintainer - we have methods of giving
> feedback and communication. Why not rate ( or auto-rate) packages on
> objective criteria?
>
> E.g.: tests and test coverage, docs, installs on python version X, Y,
> Z, works on w
> But you can bet your ass that if PyPI isn't made a good, neutral,
> central resource I'm going to leave for one that is. Do you really
> want a flood of package maintainers de-listing their packages just so
> that things work the way you think they should?
>
> I should clarify that I'm speaking
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:25 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I'm just not willing to submit to one side; hence the poll.
Nobody's asking you to "submit" to anything! We're asking for the
control to decide ourselves.
Look, there's already a large faction of people who just want to write
off PyPI a
Masklinn masklinn.net> writes:
>
> And then user will probably ask why you're not answering the question since
> you're here anyway, or might go
> as far as telling you that if you're not going to help you might as well not
> answer.
As I said, you are regarding the user as an idiot or as a trol
On 13 Nov 2009, at 00:37 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Users (which includes e.g. language users) tend to be lazy, rather than
>> stupid.
> Then they likely won't comment on PyPI. To do so, they have to setup an
> account (which most don't have). They can't post comments without an
> account.
Fair p
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:25 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> And how many of the "good" comments are astroturfers?
>
> If I understand that term correctly, it's about disguise: how would
> I be able to answer that question?
It's unprovable. But I could see a group of people easily coordinating
la
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> I've found it useful to realise that, from the perspective of a
> program/website/feedback form, etc., the user has a tiny brain: [...]
Actually it's the other way around. It's the program that has the tiny
brain. :-)
--
--Guido van Rossum (p
Hi All,
What do people think about this idea? I've actually started writing
something to try to to do this and create sn automated scoring system
for the packages on pypi.
It was started last week based on Guido's comments on the distutils
mailing list.
> Why not rate ( or auto-rate) packages on
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:14:54 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis"
wrote:
> http://pycheesecake.org/
Ok, so what is the current status on it?
David
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
h
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
