Seems more oriented to (potential) contributors than end users of the packaging system. Who cares about mission statements and inclusivity, secure funding and pay developers to make the tools.
> Who cares about mission statements and inclusivity, secure funding and pay developers to make the tools.
These are connected things.
I maintain a PyPA member project (and contribute to many others), and the latter is aided by the former: the mission statement keeps the community organized around shared goals (such as standardizing Python's packaging tooling), and inclusivity insures a healthy and steady flow of new contributors (and potential corporate funding sources).
> I maintain a PyPA member project (and contribute to many others)
THANK YOU!
> keeps the community organized around shared goals (such as standardizing Python's packaging tooling)
Personally I felt some disconnect between "package manager for all" and the need for "standardizing Python's packaging tooling." Yes, communities should be welcoming and friendly to everyone, AND the community should have clear expectations for best practices that members should follow. E.g., is an experienced female developer more likely to give up on contributing because she couldn't find a local meetup, or because she didn't know whether to create pyproject.toml vs requirements.txt? In some sense, the bigger and more diverse the community, the greater the need for a clear, solid foundation. IDK if that's remotely clear; it's just a feeling I had going through some of those questions.
Pipenv is pretty nice, I still use it. Kenneth Reitz really has a knack for interfaces and making things easier for developers to use.
The fiasco was that he was not the best at maintaining projects, and used his popularity from tablib and requests to get pipenv recommended by the PyPA well before it was ready for general use. Then around the same time there was a few scandals I don't remember the details of, something about a developer being mad that Kenneth kept the money being donated to requests. It ended up with all of his popular projects being maintained by others.
I wish the response from the PyPA was to go full in on pipenv and just keep improving it at the same rate it was in the beginning. Instead it stagnated.
Poetry came out fragmenting the ecosystem even more. And quite a few developers gave up on virtual environments in favor of docker.
pipenv started having regular releases again and have kept it going for the past few years. I like it enough to not want to put any effort into switching, but in 2017/2018 it really felt like the next big thing. It makes me sad to think that we all lost out because of politics.
Ugh I remember the dependency problems. I think we worked around it by explicitly installing dependencies first. We did almost switch to poetry because of that, but it came down to "everyone is busy, lets just see how often it is a problem". Luckily we didn't run into it too many times, and they have since fixed it.
This survey is the literal definition of leading question. Found about 2 boxes I could tick, before being forced to order a list of the designer's preferences according to how much I agree with them. The only data that can be generated from a survey like this is the data you wanted to find (see also Boston Consulting Group article earlier today). I cannot honestly respond to it
The only question I have is, what grant application(s) is the survey data being used to support?
The absence of the go binary as a tool (i.e. "go get ...", "go install ..." etc.) is odd, considering that is what has been eating Python's lunch lately.
