On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 22:09, Dan Ryan <d...@danryan.co> wrote: > To Chris’ broader point it is definitely duplicated effort and I am in full > agreement which is why I want to establish which code should be extracted and > generalized and where it should be maintained. But as Paul mentioned there > also is no PyPA strategy at play here. We aren’t trying to move into pip’s > space and vice versa AFAIU but I’m also not too sure how much trying to point > a finger at us here is helpful. You find it frustrating that we are working > in isolation, I find it frustrating that I keep being pushed to go away and > write libraries whenever I mention sharing functionality, which to me sounds > like you want me to work in isolation. Obviously there is some communication > breakdown— At the end of the day I just want to give users a consistent > experience. Hopefully this is a goal others share.
Yeah, miscommunication. It's not useful to dwell on mistakes made in the past, so thanks for simply stating your position, and moving forward. In the interests of doing the same I'll just say that I've always *intended* the message to be "if you need pip's internal functionality, pull it out into a library and write an API for it", not that people should reimplement what we'd done, like you and Chris say, that's wasted effort. If that didn't come across properly, that's my mistake. Donald said much the same, but gave more detail about the best way to go about that process, and Chris has added further suggestions in the message he just sent, all of which I agree with. Paul -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/2OOZNN5U62QFULVMCD5R7HSV5MODSQXM/
