Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused with the archive.org Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount of related projects for saving online and digital history.
bpo-11913: Add README.rst to the distutils standard READMEs #563
Conversation
|
@kirbyfan64, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @merwok, @collinw, @jaraco, @birkenfeld and @freddrake to be potential reviewers. |
|
Does PyPI display |
|
@nedbat No. |
|
I agree with @nedbat about leaving out I don't see an issue on bpo for this; am I missing something? |
|
There are efforts on the Warehouse side (discussed on various PyPA bug trackers and mailing lists) to support markdown; let’s not change the client docs before the server* actually supports it.
|
|
Proposed changes don’t match current facts. |
|
@nedbat @freddrake @merwok Fixed. |
refi64
changed the title
|
LGTM, but @merwok should weigh in. |
|
Looks good to me! |
| @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ def checking_metadata(self): | |||
|
|
|||
| sub_commands = [('check', checking_metadata)] | |||
|
|
|||
| READMES = 'README', 'README.txt' | |||
| READMES = 'README', 'README.txt', 'README.rst' | |||
vstinner
Mar 9, 2017
Member
nitpick: I prefer an explicit tuple: ('README', 'README.txt', 'README.rst')
nitpick: I prefer an explicit tuple: ('README', 'README.txt', 'README.rst')
|
@Haypo Done. |
|
Since it's a new feature, it should be documented in Misc/NEWS, maybe also in Doc/whatsnew/3.7.rst as well. |
| called your setup script), and :file:`setup.cfg` | ||
| * Any of the standard README files (:file:`README`, :file:`README.txt`, | ||
| or :file:`README.rst`), :file:`setup.py` (or whatever you called your setup | ||
| script), and :file:`setup.cfg`. |
vstinner
Mar 9, 2017
Member
You should document the change using a ".. versionchanged:: 3.7 xx" markup, see a few lines below.
You should document the change using a ".. versionchanged:: 3.7 xx" markup, see a few lines below.
ned-deily
Mar 9, 2017
Member
Also, there should be an issue for this on bugs.python.org and the PR title should reference that issue. It looks like this is a duplicate of bpo-11913 which was originally closed as "wont fix". It could be reopened and used to track this.
Also, there should be an issue for this on bugs.python.org and the PR title should reference that issue. It looks like this is a duplicate of bpo-11913 which was originally closed as "wont fix". It could be reopened and used to track this.
refi64
changed the title
|
@Haypo Done. (I would personally think this isn't worthy of going in |
|
This is a user-visible usability improvement, so it deserves a mention in whatsnew. I believe the section would be «improved modules». I don’t think there is markup to reference PRs, but you referencing the bpo bug is all that’s needed. |
|
Please fix the conflict on Misc/NEWS (rebase your change). |
|
@kirbyfan64: Oh, and see also latest @merwok comment. |
|
@Haypo Done. |
|
I fixed a conflict in whatsnew/3.7.rst |
|
Rebased again onto the latest news and whatsnew. |
|
Rebased...again... |
|
I merged your enhancement. Thanks. I didn't notice that README.rst wasn't included by distutils. Maybe because it's included in setuptools, and I now always use setuptools?
I'm sorry about that, but we are working on a solution for this very annoying file (Misc/NEWS): |
No description provided.