Re: PyCon 2013 -- tentative title/abstract/outline -- feedback plz
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > The Python conference scene seems to love testing, so if you can make a case
> > for Debian and quality assurance, and Debian has done things popular with
> > this crowd for years like automated builds and the use of very strict package
> > building tools that won't let you build without a precise specification of
> > the build dependencies, then that may appeal to some people.
> ^^ this is a great idea. It'd be nice if we could prototype a flake8 /
> pyflakes run against the archive, and filter for serious errors
I thought to provide stats on how many packages do have build-time
testing... then depending on the number of them may be do some analysis
to see if I could state that build-time tested packages have less bug
reports filed/opened (accounting at the same time against
popularity).
> Clearly, this idea is *insane*, but it's the sort of solution most
> hardcore pythonistas I know would go for, which would make us
> happy(ish), and them happy(ish).
> btw -- let's not do this. it's insane.
;)
> > I don't think you should worry too much about flames. My impression is that
> > the packaging people are trying to scale back their ambitions and just get
> > everyone to do the basic things like write decent metadata, mostly because I
> > think the process of delivering a comprehensive solution is deadlocked once
> > again, and I think that people do see the need to hear from distributions and
> > to try and get as much input from them as possible.
> I just don't want a good discussion to get deraled by a few people
> saying globally installing modules results in a bad dependency hell, and
> we're tainting their whatever.
yeah -- I would try to avoid discussion by simply stating that it works
in many cases and Debian is a clear example for that, so there is no
point to disguss it any further.
> > Paul
> - Other Paul
--
Yarik, just Yarik
Reply to: