On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> wrote: > Having a lot of meaningless options doesn't make meta data any more clear. > Well, they are not meaningless, but their role is fully fulfilled by other > options (Author and Maintainer fields in this particular case). > > The use case for the Author field is that if Author wants to be contacted, > (s)he leaves email. That's it. This use case should be described in the > meta-data along with the format that are expected to be recognized by the > software: > > Author: anatoly techtonik > Author: anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> > Author: anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com>, Anything Else for Humans, > Or For Future Specs > > Here the field content defines its type - it's like duck typing for > specification, which make specifications more pythonic. > > Is it good?
Nope. Having a separate field for email makes it clear that you should add the email there IMO. However, both author-email and maintainer-email are redundant, as is author and maintainer. The relevant info is maintainer, to be honest. //Lennart _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig