That depends on policy. I don't want to go too far down the trap of privileging my specific use case, but as a company that vendors *everything* we depend on, our accesses to PyPi for dependencies are pretty rare, which means we might run afoul of these changes when ingesting packages.
I'm going to ask the pointed question: is there actually any serious value to allowing the replacement of a name for anything that was ever in wide usage? Trademark violations notwithstanding -- legal stuff requires some degree of exception to the process -- why should abandonment result in replacement, as long as the existing code has ever been in use? On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Matthias Bussonnier < [email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Chris Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > The tricky part there is that "being used" is a tough concept to define. > > Over what time period? What amount of downloading counts as "used"? > > > > I believe these concepts need to be made very clear, because the impact > of > > exploitative replacement is pretty severe if it is made to happen. > > > > Would a month where the old package is made unavailable, but the new > owner is not given access yet be a good compromise ? > > It most likely let time the old owner (or old users) to manifest a > decide to "revive" the package if necessary, otherwise give a really > strong signal that if there is still a couple of download, then it > really does not breaks a lot. > -- > M > -- Chris R. ====== Not to be taken literally, internally, or seriously. Twitter: http://twitter.com/offby1
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
