RetroSearch Browse

Tue Mar 13 05:48:20 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117531.html

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:43, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Brian Curtin <brian at python.org> wrote:
>> Downloads don't mean the code is good. Voting is gamed. I really don't
>> think there's a good automated solution to tell us what the
>> high-quality replacement projects are.
>
> Sure, these are imperfect metrics. But not having any metrics at all
> is flawed too. Despite the huge flamewar we had 1-2 years ago about
> PyPI comments, I think we should follow the lead of the many app
> stores that pop up on the web -- users will recognize the pattern and
> will tune their skepticism sensors as needed.
>

An additional bonus of such a system is that we won't have to maintain
a separate Wiki page with "popular" choices. Pointing to the PyPI
"rating" page, which can presumably be filtered by tags (i.e. web,
scientific, XML, etc.) should be sufficient, given that such a rating
page exists.

Eli

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117531.html below:

[Python-Dev] Docs of weak stdlib modules should encourage exploration of 3rd-party alternatives