On 8 October 2014 22:17, holger krekel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 13:05 +0100, Paul Moore wrote: >> On 8 October 2014 12:40, holger krekel <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I am concerned about the fact that public PyPI links are merged in even >> > for my private packages residing on the extra index. >> >> Bluntly, that's irrelevant. > > I disagree. The PEP uses merging of public and private links in > the main rationale section which comes before discussing migration > strategies. It's used as motivation aka "look how easy it is > to use additional/multi indexes" and not as a particular migration > strategy that shouldn't be used otherwise.
OK, I think I understand your concern now - the PEP includes an example of a practice that you don't like and would prefer to see strongly discouraged. We can just delete all references to private indexes from the PEP, as they were merely included as an illustration of one of the reasons the multi-index/alternative-index support already exists. If you find the example distracting from the actual point of the PEP, then the example isn't serving its purpose, and we're better off without it. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
