> On May 15, 2015, at 2:23 PM, Erik Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey! >> >> First, for anyone who isn't aware we recently migrated PyPI and TestPyPI so >> that instead of storing files and documentation locally (really in a >> glusterfs >> cluster) it will store them inside of S3. This will reduce maintenance >> overhead >> of running PyPI by two servers since we'll no longer need to run our own >> glusterfs cluster as well as improve the reliaiblity and scalability of the >> PyPI service as a whole since we've had nothing but problems from glusterfs >> in >> this regard. >> >> One of the things that this brought to light was that the documentation >> upload ability in PyPI is something that is not often used* however it >> represents something which is one of our slowest routes. It's not a well >> supported feature and I feel that it's going outside of the core competancy >> for >> PyPI itself and instead PyPI should be focused on the files themselves. In >> addition since the time this was added to PyPI a number of free services or >> cheap services have came about that allow people to sanely upload raw >> document >> without a reliance on any particular documentation system and we've also had >> the rise of ReadTheDocs for when someone is using Sphinx as their >> documentation >> system. >> >> I think that it's time to retire this aspect of PyPI which has never been >> well >> supported and instead focus on just the things that are core to PyPI. I don't >> have a fully concrete proposal for doing this, but I wanted to reach out here >> and figure out if anyone had any ideas. The rough idea I have currently is to >> simply disable new documentation uploads and add two new small features. One >> will allow users to delete their existing documentation from PyPI and the >> other >> would allow them to register a redirect which would take them from the >> current >> location to wherever they move their documentation too. In order to prevent >> breaking documentation for projects which are defunct or not actively >> maintained we would maintain the archived documentation (sans what anyone has >> deleted) indefinetely. >> >> Ideally I hope people start to use ReadTheDocs instead of PyPI itself. I >> think >> that ReadTheDocs is a great service with heavy ties to the Python community. >> They will do a better job at hosting documentation than PyPI ever could since >> that is their core goal. In addition there is a dialog between ReadTheDocs >> and >> PyPI where there is an opportunity to add integration between the two sites >> as >> well as features to ReadTheDocs that it currently lacks that people feel are >> a >> requirement before we move PyPI's documentation to read-only. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> * Out of ~60k projects only ~2.8k have ever uploaded documentation. It's not >> easy to tell if all of them are still using it as their primary source of >> documentation though or if it's old documentation that they just can't >> delete. > > +1 for all the stated reasons. > > I have a few docs hosted on pythonhosted.org, but it's become a > nuisance to maintain since it does not support multiple doc versions > like ReadTheDocs, so now I've wound up with documentation for the same > projects on both sites. The nuisance comes not so much in the process > (like Barry wrote, I've enjoyed the simplicity of `setup.py > upload_docs`), but because more often than not I've had to redirect > users to the Readthedocs docs to make sure they're using the correct > version of the docs. So I wish I were not locked into updating the > pythonhosted.org docs and would be happy to retire them altogether > (much as I appreciated the service). > > One question is how this would be handled at the tooling end. > setup.py upload_docs would have to be retired somehow. Though it > might also be nice if some simple tools were added to make it just as > easy to add docs to ReadTheDocs. I know something like upload_docs > doesn't really make sense, since RTD handles the checkout and build of > the docs. But there's still a manual step of enabling new versions of > the docs that it would be nice to make as effortless as `setup.py > upload_docs`. I gues that's off-topic for the PyPI end of things > though. > > Erik
So I can’t speak for ReadTheDocs, but I believe that they are considering and/or are planning on offering arbitrary HTML uploads similarly to how you can upload documentation to PyPI. I don’t know if this will actually happen and what it would look like but I know they are thinking about it. As far as retiring upload_docs, the sanest thing to do I think would be to just have PyPI return an error code that upload_docs would display to the end user. The command itself is in use by a few other systems I think so we might not want to remove it wholesale from Python itself (or maybe we do? It’s a hard question since it’s tied to an external service unlike most of the stdlib). --- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
