===================================================
Django Package Thunderdome: Is your package worthy?
===================================================

Presented by Audrey Roy & Daniel Greenfeld
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. Review criteria

    1. Purpose

        * Name should tell you what it does.
        * Real need and be useful.

    2. Scope

        * Small, narrow focus is better.

    3. Documentation

        * No docs means the package is pre-alpha
        * Doc strings != documentation
        * If there are dependencies, they should be in the docs
        * Installation should be bulletproof

    4. Testing

        * Tests improve reliability
        * Tests make it easy to advance python/django versions
        * Tests make it easier for community submissions

    5. Activity

        * When was the last commit?
        * How frequent are the commits?
        * Are there periodic version updates?

    6. Community

        * Active leaders
        * How many contributors?
        * Proper attribution of authors?

    7. Modularity

        * "Pluggability"
        * Installation should be minimally invasive
        * Do not confuse modularity with over-engineering

    8. Availability on PyPI

        * Actually on PyPI
        * Latest release on PyPI
            * Should not have to go to repo for working version
        * Proper version numbers

    9. VCS/Hosting

        * Great: Github/Bitbucket
        * OK: Launchpad/SourceForge
        * Outdated: Google project hosting
        * Poor: Bespoke

    10. License

        * You need a license
        * Companies prefer BSD or MIT
        * http://opensource.org/licenses/category

2. API creation
    1. django-piston
        * Lost points for docs in a wiki.
        * Hundreds of forks
    2. django-tastypie (2nd place)
    3. django-rest-framework (1st place)
    4. django-xmlrpc
       * No tests

3. Fundamentals
    1. django-debug-toolbar (1st place)
    2. django-coverage
    3. django-extensions (2nd place)
        * Scope is just too big
    4. Pinax
        * Scope is just too big
        * History is unclear on PyPI

4. Registration
    1. django-registration
        * Popular, un-official mirror with templates.
        * If the original had templates, the fork wouldn't be needed.
    2. Pinax
    3. django-userena (2nd place)
        * Inaccurate authors file
    4. django-social-auth (1st place)

5. Profiles
    1. django-profiles
    2. django-easy-profiles
        * Not really on PyPI
        * Not really modular or tested
    3. django-userena (2nd place)
    4. idios (1st place)

6. Blogs
    1. biblion
    2. django-mingus
    3. django-basic-apps
    4. django-blog-zinnia (1st place)

6. Tagging
    1. django-taggit (1st place)
    2. django-tagging
    3. django-tagging-ng

7. Database Migrations
    1. South (1st place)
        * no license?
    2. nashvegas (2nd place (no shit?))
        * No tests

8. Honorable Mentions
    1. celery & django-celery
    2. django-haystack with pysolr or whoosh
    3. django-fixture-generator, django-sorting, django-pagination, others but they went too fast.

.. note:: http://bit.ly/django-thunderdome-2011

9. Beyond
    * run code through PEP8
    * aim for 100% test coverage
    * elegant, clean, explicit ways of doing things

10. Get more users
    * djangopackages.com (!)