Add .pypirc section to the README

[felipedau]

This PR was made with the first item from #11 in mind and intends to close #118.

I am still not sure if we should even mention that people can store passwords in that file, but I chose to tell what they can do and let them decide what's best for them. I would totally agree if you preferred to just mention the url and username to make the section simpler.

Other docs that I think we could improve are:

• https://packaging.python.org/tutorials/distributing-packages/#create-an-account: suggest the use of keyring.
• https://docs.python.org/3/distutils/packageindex.html#the-pypirc-file: encourage using Twine. There is not a single mention of it in there!

Let me know what you think!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #340 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #340   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.55%   69.55%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines         588      588           
  Branches       93       93           
=======================================
  Hits          409      409           
  Misses        150      150           
  Partials       29       29

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update dcc6375...edb2e55. Read the comment docs.

[sigmavirus24]

I think it makes more sense to include this in our real documentation and not in the README. What do you think @brainwane ?

[joshuarli]

Instead of adding this to the README or the official twine docs, and having to maintain separate .pypirc documentation, why not just add a link to the official distutils docs as originally suggested by #11, and mention that twine can also parse .pypirc for configuration?

[felipedau]

I agree with you @sigmavirus24 and @joshuarli. I thought that it was supposed to be a section just like the keyring one. Should we wait for @brainwane's opinion or go ahead and change it?

One other thing I think we should do is mentioning twine in the official docs and possibly suggest the use of keyring. What do you think?

[brainwane]

I'd love for folks to update the official distutils docs (including pointing to Twine, if they're ok with that) and then point to that from the Twine README and ReadTheDocs docs!

[theacodes]

I'm -1 on having this in the readme, and agree that we should just fix the upstream docs. I'll make a note for myself to do that, but if someone wants to beat me to it, go for it!

[di]

I think we probably should operate under the assumption that the distutils docs are going to go away in the future, and that the documentation at https://packaging.python.org/ will outlive them.

[theacodes]

That's a fair assumption.

…

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:26 AM Dustin Ingram ***@***.***> wrote: I think we probably should operate under the assumption that the distutils docs are going to go away in the future, and that the documentation at https://packaging.python.org/ will outlive them. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#340 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAPUc0B6T8AdAn-imKKVNchdAsJUh-c8ks5ua9ikgaJpZM4TMeVj> .

[theacodes]

Okay, I'm -1 on this PR, it seems the right place to document this is packaging.python.org. If anything, this should just link to those docs.

I'm going to go ahead and close this, but we can continue to discuss / move this to packaging.python.org.