This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author tarek
Recipients lemburg, pitrou, tarek, techtonik
Date 2009-09-30.12:54:13
SpamBayes Score 0.0002608826
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1254315255.41.0.837067032774.issue6992@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> The meta-data is only used by PyPI and perhaps a handful
> of other tools.
[...]
> The addition of the maintainer meta-data field would 
> not hurt anyone and create more consistency.

since PyPI has its own Role system (owner, maintainer) managed by the
user who registered the distribution, independantly from the Metadata,
what use case are you thinking about for a new Maintainer field ?

When an author is not maintaining a package anymore, and an extra name
has to be added, we previously said that this extra name could be added
in the author field. 

So what would be the gain to distinguish maintainers form authors, and 
how PyPI will deal with the fact that a package will have maintainers in
its metadata, and maintainers at PyPI that may differ ?
History
Date User Action Args
2009-09-30 12:54:15tareksetrecipients: + tarek, lemburg, pitrou, techtonik
2009-09-30 12:54:15tareksetmessageid: <1254315255.41.0.837067032774.issue6992@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-09-30 12:54:14tareklinkissue6992 messages
2009-09-30 12:54:13tarekcreate