You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This seems like a deliberate choice, but it seems that at the moment the Author: metadata is pulled preferentially from maintainer=, and Maintainer: is never actually generated.
The implementation is here, and the implementation of get_contact that prioritizes maintainer is here.
I suspect that this is an artifact of the fact that PEP 314 does not provide a Maintainer field, and that was a later addition in PEP 345?
I can make a PR for this, but there is an implementation question. The options I see right now are:
Maintain the current behavior and simply add a "Maintainer" field. This is the most "backwards compatible" way to do things.
Change the behavior so that author= is given preference over maintainer= when generating the AUTHOR field, but still use maintainer if no author is specified. Additionally always add the Maintainer field if maintainer= is present.
Change the behavior so that onlyauthor= generates the Author field and onlymaintainer= generates the Maintainer: field. This is the least backwards-incompatible change.
I suspect that the choice of these probably should come down to how PyPI and Warehouse handle the metadata. If both PyPI and Warehouse are able to handle an either/or Author/Maintainer field, then I suggest that the best option is 3. Basically the fallback logic should be on the metadata consumer side, not on the metadata producer side.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This seems like a deliberate choice, but it seems that at the moment the
Author:
metadata is pulled preferentially frommaintainer=
, andMaintainer:
is never actually generated.The implementation is here, and the implementation of
get_contact
that prioritizesmaintainer
is here.I suspect that this is an artifact of the fact that PEP 314 does not provide a
Maintainer
field, and that was a later addition in PEP 345?I can make a PR for this, but there is an implementation question. The options I see right now are:
author=
is given preference overmaintainer=
when generating theAUTHOR
field, but still usemaintainer
if noauthor
is specified. Additionally always add theMaintainer
field ifmaintainer=
is present.author=
generates theAuthor
field and onlymaintainer=
generates theMaintainer:
field. This is the least backwards-incompatible change.I suspect that the choice of these probably should come down to how PyPI and Warehouse handle the metadata. If both PyPI and Warehouse are able to handle an either/or Author/Maintainer field, then I suggest that the best option is 3. Basically the fallback logic should be on the metadata consumer side, not on the metadata producer side.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: