|
|
|
|
|
by LtWorf
526 days ago
|
|
https://docs.python.org/3/installing/index.html so it's PSF's decision to document using pip, right? And they might decide to change that page without asking for anyone's consent right? So they also don't get to complain about pip's shortcomings because it is their decision to point users towards pip. Correct? Have I been explicit enough for you now? |
|
This doesn't somehow imply that Python has a top-down authority structure where the PSF dictates the development flow of PyPI, pip, or any other official/semi-official/blessed tooling or infrastructure. That's not how Python works as a community.
The PSF is also not complaining here about pip's shortcomings. I'm the only one here and I don't represent the PSF, nor am I complaining: I think pip is great. I'm trying to explain (apparently unsuccessfully) why pip (and PyPI's) behavior isn't always 100% congruous with a single stream of development thinking. As mentioned above there are more optimal structures given different kinds of governance and community, but this one aligns with the (IMO good) values that the Python community espouses.