[Distutils] Multi-version import support for wheel files

[PJ Eby]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> I think you're confused. The only comments I see in this thread are people doing
> due diligence to ensure that Nick's proposal *didn't* include the parts of setuptools
> that we felt were incurring a cost against people not using the feature and expressing
> a desire *not* to attach it to the Wheel format and instead attach it to another format
> on it's own. I mean the person you originally quoted even explicitly said "I have no
> objection to this proposal" sans some stuff about not wanting it to be attached to
> Wheels. So I'm not sure how you can take someone saying they have no objection
> to the proposal and translate it to people are shooting down Nick's proposal.

FUD stands for fear, uncertainty, doubt.  My comment was that a lot of
the original objections to Nick's proposal seemed fearful, uncertain,
and doubting, specifically because they were thinking the proposal was
proposing things it wasn't.

It was you who brought up the idea of persecution; my response was
that I don't think anybody's persecuting setuptools, only giving
unnecessary levels of doubt to Nick's proposal due to confusion about
how it relates (i.e. mostly doesn't) to setuptools.

You pounced on a tiny piece of my email to Paul, in which I mainly
expressed confusion about his statements about "cost".  I was having
trouble understanding what sort of "costs" he meant, and in subsequent
discussion realized that it's because he and others appeared to have
conflated setuptools' default-version issues, with Nick's proposal for
handling non-default versions.  My comment was that 90% of the thread
appeared to stem from this fear, uncertainty, and doubt, based on this
misunderstanding, although more precisely worded, what I actually
meant was that 90% of the *objections* raised to Nick's proposal were
based on the aforementioned fear, uncertainty, and doubt -- i.e., that
the objections had nothing to do with that which was being proposed.

At one point this weekend, I had intended to write a detailed rebuttal
to all of the points that had been raised, but by the time I had time
to do so, the discussion was mostly settled and the issue mostly
moot...  but the impression that 90% of the original objections were
misunderstanding-based remained, which led to my (perhaps
poorly-phrased) 90% remark.

All that being said, I'm not sure why you pounced on that side-comment
in the first place; did you think I was personally insulting you or
accusing you of something?

ISTM that you are making an awfully big deal out of an incidental
remark that had very little to do with the main point of the email,
and framing it as though I am the one who is making a big deal of
something.  If you hadn't intervened, I don't see any reason why the
conversation wouldn't have reached a peaceable conclusion, and am
still puzzled as to why you felt the need to intervene.  Your initial
email began by disputing facts that you now appear to accept, in that
you did not reply to any of my rebuttals to your assertions.  But
instead of admitting your assertions were in error, you're asserting
that I'm the one who's confused.

Well, I wasn't before, but I sure am *now*.  ;-)