Spreading awareness of PEP 752

[ofek]

Hello team! I just wanted to bring to your attention a new PEP about package repository namespaces where I used your packages/community as a motivating example 🙂

We would love your feedback in the current discussion: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-752-package-repository-namespaces/61227

cc @potiuk

[potiuk]

This is cool. Actually we had a very relevant discussion today about a potential confusion and new provider created by someone - see #41556 (comment) - I will ask other PMC members to take a look. After quick reaing this would be great to be able to have it for Airflow.

[ashb]

Very nice. In some ways I almost don't want us to reserve that prefix so that other members of the community can release their own packages.

Maybe that's okay, and we say to those people "use airflow-provider- prefix, and reserve apache-airflow- for official ones"

[potiuk]

Maybe that's okay, and we say to those people "use airflow-provider- prefix, and reserve apache-airflow- for official ones"

Yes. That would be nice if we could make it a convention and have a way to enforce the "root" namespace to only be used by Apache Airflow team. This is also the "expectation" of the ASF - naming convention of packages is part of "branding" expectations from project - and currently with PyPI is not enforceable - with that change however it could be.

[ofek]

Hey! Two points:

1. You are not a corporate organization so the namespace would be public meaning your packages will get a special icon on PyPI but others can still release, and no icon.
2. If I change the spec to allow community projects to have private namespaces what you're saying is possible because child grants can be public even if the root is private.

[ofek]

Oh wait, I guess Apache may pay for this because it's a large entity? If not then I would have to change a line in the PEP to allow non-paying organizations to have private namespaces.

[potiuk]

I think ASF might not be able to pay for it, but maybe the "Corporate" status of the ASF might be donated by the PSF - we have similar thing with Slack, GitHub and others.

While ASF is a big organization, with > 200 projects, and ~ 1000 members and many thousands committers, it's purely volunteer-driven with practically zero friction to get new contributors, maintainer sand we do not have deep pockets, so any kind (especially "per-user") payment is generally no-go.

[ofek]

That's a great idea actually, I could add an explicit exception that reviewers could grant community projects a private namespace at their discretion.

[ofek]

The policy/operational parts have been extracted into a separate PEP:

• Specification: PEP 752
• Policy: PEP 755

Would either of you care to comment on the discussions? We are actively trying to assess community reception to the proposal and it is difficult without explicit feedback!

[potiuk]

Sorry I was on vacations - and only got to it now @ofek - but I commented now https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-755-implicit-namespace-policy-for-pypi/63191/75 . I hope adding an explanation from the perspective an open-source organisation/PMC that would need this feature and why might help as a 'potential user' case.