PEP 752: Implicit namespaces for package repositories

[mikeshardmind (Michael H)]

@ofek

Here is what the enumeration pulls from:

@ofek

Microsoft

I did not read that as support for this pep’s specific solution, but that Microsoft would use it. In the same breath, alternatives were suggested that are less heavy-handed that it was believed Microsoft would be okay with.

A direct quote of a portion of the linked message:

@steve.dower

I like this. pip install microsoft::azure-loganalytics or microsoft@azure-loganalytics might be hijacking the syntax from something potentially better, but interpreting it as “package must have this user as owner/maintainer” would likely be better than the whole namespace.

“better than the whole namespace”.

This feels very disingenuous to use as support for this specific method while rejecting other options, and I think it’s the fact that you are presenting the information in such a way that’s also amplifying why people are so negative on this. It feels to me like this proposal requires deceptive presentation to even survive basic comparison with other options, and that the alternatives are not being given fair consideration as to if they are actually better for the community and would solve the problems that have led to some level of support here.