On 27 August 2013 00:15, PJ Eby <[email protected]> wrote: > You pounced on a tiny piece of my email to Paul, in which I mainly > expressed confusion about his statements about "cost". I was having > trouble understanding what sort of "costs" he meant, and in subsequent > discussion realized that it's because he and others appeared to have > conflated setuptools' default-version issues, with Nick's proposal for > handling non-default versions. >
Note that I freely admit to *having* fear, uncertainty and doubt: I feared that Nick's proposal would impact users who just wanted to use default versions. I was wrong, no issue, but I was concerned. I was uncertain as to what Nick meant by "pkg_resources compatible". This has now been explained, thanks, but I wasn't sure. I doubted that I had the full picture and I was going to investigate. Others provided extra information so I didn't need to do so myself, but I had questions that needed to be answered initially. None of these things is wrong. It is *spreading* FUD (and in particular, doing so cynically to undermine a proposal) that is wrong, and I hope I didn't do that - I certainly did not intend to and I'm a bit unhappy about the implication that I might have. (Not enough to make an issue of it, this is distutils-sig after all and you need a thick skin to hang out here :-)) Just as a side-note, I'm impressed by how careful everyone is being to keep discussions on distutils-sig friendly and constructive these days. My thanks to everyone for that. Paul
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
