[echelon]

It's not just that this is boring work, but there's disagreement about Cargo and crates.io's direction. There are a lot of changes people would like to make that get turned down.

Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no.

There's a big problem with name squatting, and nothing is being done about this either.

I get that there are more technically important issues around builds and reproducibility and the like, but this is pretty foundational stuff.

[stymaar]

> Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no.

They are favorable to crate-name-as-namespace (so that once you have the tokio crate you can use tokio as a namespace) and there's ongoing work on that. But as said above, it takes work to implement.

There's no desire for other meaning of the word "namespace" because famously nobody ever made a well-reasoned proposal (despite the amount of social media outrage over the lack of namespace).

[epage]

That and the existing reply are incorrect. Almost everyone has repeated the same superficial requests and design work and not dug into the problems to come up with a proposal that respectfully threads seemingly contradictory requirements (the answer isn't to be dismissive but to step through costs/benefits and explain why a path is justified).

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/survey-of-organizational-o... is a start in just collecting existing knowledge in one place.