It feels like we are approaching a consensus around `pulp3`. I would like to take an informal poll using the voting syntax from PUP-1. [0] The other questions need to be hashed out a little more.
+1 pulp3 +0 pulpproject -0 pulpproj -0 pulp_platform -1 plp [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md#voting On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not a fan of plp, it does look too much like pip IMO > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Another alternative: plp >> >> Pros: >> - super short! >> - pinky typing exercise >> >> Cons: >> - Fonts are silly: plp (PLP) looks like pIp (PIP) >> - sounds "web 2.0" >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Sean Myers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 04/12/2017 10:48 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: >>> > I like pulp3 better, but it has some weirdness. I'm stating the >>> obvious, >>> > but we wouldn't be able to keep the name for pulp 4. When we put our >>> major >>> > versions on PyPI, they will all be treated as completely separate >>> projects. >>> > I don't see a big problem there, but it is unusual. >>> >>> You can do a little handwave and say "uh, it's pulp for python3! yeah!" >>> and >>> feel good about pulp3 again, I think. :) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
