On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Marcus Smith <qwc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nick: > > I'm not sure who owns it yet.
I ran into Jannis before he left this morning, and he was fairly sure someone decided it would also be a good idea to register it on BitBucket after the GitHub group was set up. > If it is one of us, then it would need to be a group vote to use the pypa > "brand name" like this. > I'll try to get all the pypa people to come here and register their opinion. > > here's my personal thoughts: > > I understand the motivation to reuse our name, but probably less political > to start a new nifty short name. A big part of my role at this point is to take the heat for any potentially political or otherwise controversial issues (similar to the way Guido takes the heat for deciding what colour various bikesheds are going to be painted in the core language design - the "BDFL-Delegate" title was chosen advisedly). While we certainly won't do it if you're not amenable as a group, I'll be trying my best to persuade you that it's a good idea to turn your self-chosen name into official reality :) > "pypack" or something. "pack" as in a group of people, but also short for > "packaging" The reason I'd like permission to re-use the name is because I want to be crystal clear that pip *is* the official installer, and virtualenv is the official way to get venv support in versions prior to 3.3, and similar for distlib and pylauncher (of course, I also need to make sure Vinay is OK with that, since those projects currently live under his personal repo). I don't want to ask the pypa to change its name, and I absolutely *do not* want to have people asking whether or not pypa and some other group are the ones to listen to in terms of how to do software distribution "the Python way". I want to have one group that the core Python docs can reference and say "if you need to distribute Python software with and for older Python versions, here's where to go for the latest and greatest tools and advice". If we have two distinct names on GitHub and PyPI, it becomes that little bit harder to convey that pylauncher, pip, virtualenv, distlib are backwards compatible versions of features of Python 3.4+ and officially endorsed by the core development team. > In the spirit of the blog post, here's the 2 doc projects I'd like to see > exist under this new ~"pypack" group account, and be linked to from the main > python docs. > > 1) "Python Packaging User Guide": to replace the unmaintained Hitchhiker's > guide, or just get permission to copy that in here and get it up to date > and more complete. > 2) "Python Packaging Dev Hub": a simpler name to replace > "python-meta-packaging" > > give the ~10-15 people that are actively involved in the various packaging > projects and PEPs admin/merge access to help maintain these docs. Yes, that sounds like a good structure. > and then announce this on python-announce as real and supported indirectly > by the PSF. It's not PSF backing that matters, it's the python-dev backing to add links from the 2.7 and 3.3 versions of the docs on python.org to the user guide on the new site (and probably from the CPython dev guide to the packaging developer hub). That's a fair bit easier for me to sell if it's one group rather than two. > people will flock IMO to follow it and contribute with pulls and issues Yes, a large part of my goal here is similar to that of the PSF board when Brett Cannon was funded for a couple of months to write the initial version of the CPython developer guide. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
