Mirrors_Framework/awesome-python
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/vinta/awesome-python.git synced 2026-10-02 08:23:10 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: fold serves-Python-developers scope test into ADR-0001

Browse Source 
Per maintainer choice, the new scope test replaces the old primarily-written-in-Python (>50%) requirement: implementation language and packaging no longer matter as long as Python developers use the thing in their Python work (e.g. uv and ty are Rust; agent skill packs are markdown), while pure-Python projects nobody uses in Python work still don't qualify. Folded into the existing ADR rather than filed as a separate one.

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Vinta Chen
2026-08-15 13:11:04 +08:00
co-authored by Claude
parent d4d518fc32
commit 9218024200
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/adr/0001-shortlist-not-catalog.md
+1 -1
View File
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ By mid-2026 the list held 576 entries across 75 sections, with entry inflow up 2
## The decision ## The decision
Each Use Case (a subcategory, or a flat section) lists at most its Obvious Choices — up to 3, plus up to 2 marked Challengers, hard maximum 5 (numbers provisional, to be reviewed after the prune). Admission is by maintainer editorial judgment, informed primarily by PyPI download counts rather than GitHub stars, and stated as final; judgment overrides the signal's known failure modes (CI/dependency-inflated counts, model releases consumed as weights rather than pip installs, large-but-specific audiences misread as "niche"). Once a Use Case is at cap, the only way in is Displacement: the PR names the entry it replaces and argues the newcomer does that job better. Use Cases are defined by the list's existing structure; an entry PR can never create the subcategory it needs. Standard-library entries hold a slot only where the stdlib module is itself the obvious choice. The existing stock gets the same test retroactively: a staged, worst-first prune (per-section sweep commits), with removed entries deleted outright — git history is the archive. Resources sections (Newsletters, Podcasts, Websites) are out of scope for now. The list's scope test is "serves Python developers", replacing the old "primarily written in Python (>50%)" requirement: implementation language and packaging are irrelevant when Python developers use the thing in their Python work (uv and ty are Rust; agent skill packs are markdown), while a pure-Python project nobody uses in Python work does not belong. Each Use Case (a subcategory, or a flat section) lists at most its Obvious Choices — up to 3, plus up to 2 marked Challengers, hard maximum 5 (numbers provisional, to be reviewed after the prune). Admission is by maintainer editorial judgment, informed primarily by PyPI download counts rather than GitHub stars, and stated as final; judgment overrides the signal's known failure modes (CI/dependency-inflated counts, model releases consumed as weights rather than pip installs, large-but-specific audiences misread as "niche"). Once a Use Case is at cap, the only way in is Displacement: the PR names the entry it replaces and argues the newcomer does that job better. Use Cases are defined by the list's existing structure; an entry PR can never create the subcategory it needs. Standard-library entries hold a slot only where the stdlib module is itself the obvious choice. The existing stock gets the same test retroactively: a staged, worst-first prune (per-section sweep commits), with removed entries deleted outright — git history is the archive. Resources sections (Newsletters, Podcasts, Websites) are out of scope for now.
## Considered options ## Considered options