bpo-11913: Add README.rst to the distutils standard READMEs by refi64 · Pull Request #563 · python/cpython (original) (raw)
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 andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Conversation23 Commits1 Checks0 Files changed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})
Does PyPI display README.md yet? If not, let's not pretend it's a standard format.
I agree with @nedbat about leaving out README.md; otherwise this looks good.
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.
- and possibly other server implementations like devpi and mirrors
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Proposed changes don’t match current facts.
Add README.md and README.rst to the distutils standard READMEs Add README.rst to the distutils standard READMEs
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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' |
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nitpick: I prefer an explicit tuple: ('README', 'README.txt', 'README.rst')
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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`. |
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You should document the change using a ".. versionchanged:: 3.7 xx" markup, see a few lines below.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Add README.rst to the distutils standard READMEs bpo-11913: Add README.rst to the distutils standard READMEs
@Haypo Done. (I would personally think this isn't worthy of going in whatsnew/3.7.rst, but if you still feel so, which section would it go under, and how do you reference PR's like :issue: does?)
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).
I fixed a conflict in whatsnew/3.7.rst
Rebased again onto the latest news and whatsnew.
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?
Rebased again onto the latest news and whatsnew.
Rebased...again...
I'm sorry about that, but we are working on a solution for this very annoying file (Misc/NEWS):
python/core-workflow#66
jaraco pushed a commit that referenced this pull request
