5 ms·

The current approach of the maintainers terrifies me -- de facto standards should be respected. Even if something is invalid like `description-file`, if it is p

The current approach of the maintainers terrifies me -- de facto standards should be respected. Even if something is invalid like `description-file`, if it is present in 12k repos it should raise a warning and not break anything. In the rationale for this that I can find [1], a maintainer says the following: > I'm inclined to say we should do it, even though it will cause some disruption. They also say an alternative is to "accept the status quo", which is exactily what they should be doing. I can't find maintainers giving a compelling reason not to support this status quo of `long-description` as an alias to `long_description` besides "simplifying code." Code simplification should never take precedence over massive breakage of compatibility. [1] https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/4870#pullrequestreview-2669470154 https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/4870#pullrequestrevi...

Numerlor 1y ago
I'm usually of the opinion of just removing stuff when it needs to be gone, but this is really an incosequential change to the setuptools code compared to how many problems it caused
- jarboot 1y ago
  "Needs to be gone" is the operative phrase here. An alias of `description-long` to `description_long` has no specific technical need to be removed. The conditions that lead to having two tokens pointing to the same functionality should be prevented, but in this case it is a "de facto" alias which no amount reasonable amount of labor could fix.
HereBeBeasties 1y ago
It seems that the person who did this acted unilaterally, with no code review, and ignored (then disabled) broken tests while landing this (https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/4909 https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/4909). One should not be too harsh - he seems to be a student. One perhaps should be more harsh on the commerical entity sponsoring the project, though - setuptools is sponsored by Sonar via "Tidelift". According to https://tidelift.com/subscription/pkg/pypi-setuptools https://tidelift.com/subscription/pkg/pypi-setuptools: > The maintainers of setuptools get paid by Tidelift to > implement industry-leading secure software development > practices and document the practices they follow. Well, that really doesn't seem so in this case now, does it?

Numerlor 1y ago

I'm usually of the opinion of just removing stuff when it needs to be gone, but this is really an incosequential change to the setuptools code compared to how many problems it caused

jarboot 1y ago
"Needs to be gone" is the operative phrase here. An alias of `description-long` to `description_long` has no specific technical need to be removed. The conditions that lead to having two tokens pointing to the same functionality should be prevented, but in this case it is a "de facto" alias which no amount reasonable amount of labor could fix.

HereBeBeasties 1y ago

It seems that the person who did this acted unilaterally, with no code review, and ignored (then disabled) broken tests while landing this (https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/4909 https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/4909). One should not be too harsh - he seems to be a student. One perhaps should be more harsh on the commerical entity sponsoring the project, though - setuptools is sponsored by Sonar via "Tidelift". According to https://tidelift.com/subscription/pkg/pypi-setuptools https://tidelift.com/subscription/pkg/pypi-setuptools: > The maintainers of setuptools get paid by Tidelift to > implement industry-leading secure software development > practices and document the practices they follow. Well, that really doesn't seem so in this case now, does it?