There's hope for #Python packages being discovered correctly by #Github dependency graph! 😅 https://github.com/community/community/discussions/6456#discussioncomment-4101689
@sethmlarson Or instead of using this half-solution they could just use PEP 517, which has been the standard for like 5 years?
@sethmlarson It feels irresponsible that someone built a funding allocation mechanism on top of Github's dependency graph. My god.
@sethmlarson Though honestly the whole "allocate funding by dependency" feels like a Goodhart disaster waiting to happen, so maybe it's not such a big deal if the metric is measured stupidly anyway 🤷
@pganssle Just to be clear and double-up on the irresponsibility, that "someone" I was referencing is Github: https://github.com/sponsors/explore?ecosystem=PIP
@pganssle Pradyun is all over it: https://github.com/community/community/discussions/6456#discussioncomment-4102028
Standards over implementations!
@sethmlarson To be clear, PEP 621 is better than nothing, but they should start with PEP 517 and parse pyproject.toml only as an optimization.
@pganssle I'm grateful for any movement at all, honestly. This issue has been around far too long, it bums me out thinking how many projects missed out on funding because they were using modern packaging standards :(