Pre-PEP discussion: Project status markers in the Index APIs

[dustin (Dustin Ingram)]

@woodruffw

I think my concern with this mirrors the one that @pf_moore raised: if a PEP here doesn’t actually standardize some of these keys, then it’s essentially a “no-op” from a standards perspective (since the living index standard already says that indices can insert underscore-prefixed keys).

(Which is maybe a good thing!)

Given the above, I’m now less sure that a PEP makes sense than when I started this thread . With all of the discussion around namespace separation and the observation that PyPI could just add an underscored key and call it a day, I’d love to hear thoughts from @dustin and @miketheman about the approach they’d prefer from PyPI’s side.

Late to respond here but I think I agree: unless a PEP is able to define a standard across indices for:

a) what the status markers are;
b) what state changes are possible and what they mean;
c) how to ‘get’ the status of a given project.

I think unless we can do the first two in a general way, defining a PEP for the third doesn’t add a lot of benefit.

(Note that in this hypothetical PEP I don’t think every index should have to support every status marker, so some “minimum required state machine”, as well as a way for an index to indicate what statuses it supports, would probably be necessary).