The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20201020032341/https://github.com/python/python-docs-theme/issues/5
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make this available in PyPI? #5

Closed
Mariatta opened this issue Dec 18, 2017 · 10 comments
Closed

Make this available in PyPI? #5

Mariatta opened this issue Dec 18, 2017 · 10 comments
Assignees

Comments

@Mariatta
Copy link
Member

@Mariatta Mariatta commented Dec 18, 2017

No description provided.

@theacodes
Copy link
Collaborator

@theacodes theacodes commented Dec 19, 2017

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

@JulienPalard
Copy link
Member

@JulienPalard JulienPalard commented Dec 21, 2017

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

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

@ncoghlan ncoghlan commented Dec 24, 2017

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 :)

@ned-deily
Copy link
Member

@ned-deily ned-deily commented Jan 22, 2018

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).

@theacodes
Copy link
Collaborator

@theacodes theacodes commented Jan 25, 2018

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 ?

@theacodes theacodes self-assigned this Jan 25, 2018
@Mariatta
Copy link
Member Author

@Mariatta Mariatta commented Jan 25, 2018

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

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

@ncoghlan ncoghlan commented Jan 25, 2018

Aye, happy to be a backup publisher :)

@theacodes
Copy link
Collaborator

@theacodes theacodes commented Jan 25, 2018

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

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

@ncoghlan ncoghlan commented Jan 27, 2018

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.

@theacodes
Copy link
Collaborator

@theacodes theacodes commented Feb 2, 2018

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

@theacodes theacodes closed this Feb 2, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.