On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:00 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: [..] > Isn't it interesting how these rules prohibit open disagreement or criticism > (or even discussion!) of distribute and related matters, but *not* > setuptools?
There's a huge gap between criticism + discussion, and the habitual flame of distribute vs setuptools. I think you know what I mean. Feel free to propose some changes on these rules, because I think you would be as happy as I would not to have to deal with flames like that. > > I mean, if I realized that as the maintainer of a package that people were > openly criticizing here, I could just post a list of rules to the SIG and > prohibit it, I might've done that five years ago. ;-) (Nah, not really. > But I'm certainly amused by how you've suddenly become concerned with > "tone" in the SIG as soon as you get ONE person who's unhappy with > distribute.) I've posted now because Distutils-SIG for some time was a peaceful place again, then a thread started a new unuseful flame again. > > On a separate note, I'm curious why discussion of Distutils2 development is > not in a formal Python SIG, such as the Distutils-SIG. To avoid such threads and flames. I am moderating the list over there because I don't want the ambiance to become as bad as distutils-SIG. I am not the maintainer of Distutils-SIG, and I am just making some suggestions to try to improve the situation. I would like the GSOC student to work in a friendly environment and not have them to deal with annoying threads. They are sending mails at distutils-SIG from time to time, but the work happens there. Maybe the list will disappear at some point if distutils-SIG become a friendlier place. You are welcome to join and work with us on distutils2 there, _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig