[Question] Is urlpath still active?

[interifter]

I'm canvasing available parsers for SCM URLs, and all need new features.
However, all are also extremely inactive. This one, however, is the most promising, given its built-in OO nature.

Are you still contributing? If not, is there any issue with me creating a new project that closes the gap between what we need and what this library provides?

Note, I would be leveraging content from:

• https://github.com/coala/git-url-parse/
• https://github.com/nephila/giturlparse/
• and this library

The use cases are:

• Easily-readable string output (like the built-in ParseResult string representation)
• Better-handle the format git@github.com/path/ro/project.git
• Better-handle the format: ssh://git@github.com:1234/path/to/project.git

[chrono-meter]

NO. Recently, I'm not using Python.
If you want such a functions, you would create new project or fork this library.

If you fork it, I will may transfer the Pypi owner rights.

[brandonschabell]

@chrono-meter Hey, I'm happy to take over the Pypi package if you'd like. Changes to Python 3.10 broke urlpath and I'd be interested in fixing that and deploying a new working version. Feel free to email me at brandonschabell@gmail.com.

[ickc]

Hi, I see that probably another maintainer has taken over the PyPI package. Could you make this official?

E.g. you can transfer ownership of this repo: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/creating-and-managing-repositories/transferring-a-repository

Or you could add a message at the beginning of your README to point to the fork you approved.

Or at the very least archive this repo to make it read-only?

Thanks.

Edit: May be a bit more elaboration: keeping this repo as is has some problems. e.g. a forked repo do not have their own issue tracker. So making it official is better in the long run.

[ickc]

Also, see #16 (comment)

Hi @ickc . I deployed the 1.2.0 version from my fork, which you can find at https://www.github.com/brandonschabell/urlpath.

[ickc]

Another issue of this repo is license.

Currently, it is said that the license is PSF, with no license attached. (Based on this I grabbed a license to put it in the conda-forge feedstock: https://github.com/conda-forge/urlpath-feedstock/blob/master/recipe/LICENSE , which is from https://spdx.org/licenses/ where the only matching PSF license is PSF 2.0.)

Now, (I'm not a lawyer), the wording said

This LICENSE AGREEMENT is between the Python Software Foundation ("PSF"), and the Individual or Organization ("Licensee") accessing and otherwise using this software ("Python")...

I'm not quite sure this license should really apply to a package outside Python and its stdlib?

Anyway, although this particular license does not seem to require you to distribute the license together with the software, it would be clarifying if a license file is included so there's no guess work here.

(And it would be great if it relicense to something more mainstream so that people know what they're signing up for. E.g. I'm not certain if the PSF license should be used by "3rd parties" etc.)