Skip to content

Make this available in PyPI? #5

Closed

Description

@Mariatta
No description provided.

Activity

  1. theacodes commented on Dec 19, 2017

    @theacodes
    Collaborator

    I suggested this for both this repo and its downstream pypa-docs-theme, but @ncoghlan raised some concerns.

  2. JulienPalard commented on Dec 21, 2017

    @JulienPalard
    Member

    There's https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-docs-theme/ but with no files, do you remember the conerns?

  3. ncoghlan commented on Dec 24, 2017

    @ncoghlan
    Contributor

    IIRC, my main question was just asking what we'd gain from the extra update publication overhead relative to having users install from the git repo.

    I'm OK with "We want to set a good example" as an answer to that question, though :)

  4. ned-deily commented on Jan 22, 2018

    @ned-deily
    Member

    There is another (IMHO blocking) reason to make this available on PyPI: as it stands, if the changes associated with bpo-30607 / cPython PR 2017 were merged, this would introduce a new dependency on Git in the cPython Docs build. Currently, there is no such dependency and, in fact, I know of at least one build process that depends on there being no dependency on Git. This would also affect any builders from cPython source tarballs, unless the release process were changed to bundle the docs theme into the source tarball. I would much prefer to see this as a PyPI download like the rest of the Docs build toolchain (e.g. Sphinx and friends).

  5. theacodes commented on Jan 25, 2018

    @theacodes
    Collaborator

    Great point, Ned. Since I own the PyPI record already, it's trivial to get this published.

    @ncoghlan @Mariatta would you like to also be added as package owners in case I disappear / go rogue ?

  6. self-assigned this
    on Jan 25, 2018
  7. Mariatta commented on Jan 25, 2018

    @Mariatta
    MemberAuthor

    Thanks for asking :) Sure, feel free to add me.

  8. ncoghlan commented on Jan 25, 2018

    @ncoghlan
    Contributor

    Aye, happy to be a backup publisher :)

  9. theacodes commented on Jan 25, 2018

    @theacodes
    Collaborator

    Great. It occurs to me that we need to think of a versioning strategy. Should we just match Python major.minor?

  10. ncoghlan commented on Jan 27, 2018

    @ncoghlan
    Contributor

    I'd suggest a date based version - that way if we decide to update the look & feel, we can make the decision on whether or not to update old maintenance branches at the same time.

  11. theacodes commented on Feb 2, 2018

    @theacodes
    Collaborator

    SGTM. Created #11 and closing this as we've published. :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions