I don't like 1, because that would mean loosing all the tidiness we have right now, or at least the attempt for this. I would really like 2 though, we should make a new class for the helpers imo, and provide there all the methods we intend for users from the helpers :D

With Noam also in favor of 2, I'll add the 💥 tag and postpone to v14

Random thought, maybe we can do like from python-telegram-bot import ***? This has two tremendous upsides: No namespace issues anymore with other libraries/user files. And three clear subcategories: python-telegram-bot.telegram for all pure API stuff, python-telegram-bot.ext for all ext stuff we did, and python-telegram-bot.utils for utils we provide.

Interesting ideas! In fact "project name = name of the only package provided by the project" is strongly encouraged by PEP 423.
However, hyphens in package names give syntax error (you'd have to do smth like __import__('python-telgeram-bot') and while underscores would be possible, PEP 8 discourages using them.

If the goal ist just to have the telegram package renamed to something that's more unique to PTB, one thus could e.g. use python_telegram_bot or ptb. If the goal is to satisfy both PEP 8 and PEP 423, we should rename python-telegram-bot to something different (including GH organization & repo, RTD, homepage etc). maybe just ptb. Or awesomegram. TBH, I'm not so sure if any of the two solutions are worth the trouble we'd bring upon both ourself and the users. AFAIK the only other project providing a telegram package is telegram which doesn't even do anything and all other projects like pyTelegramBotApi, pyrogram, aiogram, botogram & telethon have more unique package names.

Regarding structure: In your proposed solution, would python-telegram-bot contain anything directly? Is having to type an additional .telegram worth the added clarity? basename.ext instead of (basename.)telegram.ext sounds interesting, but it only makes sense if we add a basename. Same for .utils - here we'd also still need telegram/ext.utils for things are exclusively used for the internals (e.g. type aliases, timestamp encodings & such).

In any case, even if we decide to continue discussion in this direction, I guess we can still first go ahead with the changes mentioned above. Renaming/ordering the packages can still be done an the end of v14 phase 1 or after phase 2.

Interesting ideas! In fact "project name = name of the only package provided by the project" is strongly encouraged by PEP 423.
However, hyphens in package names give syntax error (you'd have to do smth like import('python-telgeram-bot') and while underscores would be possible, PEP 8 discourages using them.

Urgh, yeah, no underscores then

If the goal ist just to have the telegram package renamed to something that's more unique to PTB, one thus could e.g. use python_telegram_bot or ptb. If the goal is to satisfy both PEP 8 and PEP 423, we should rename python-telegram-bot to something different (including GH organization & repo, RTD, homepage etc). maybe just ptb. Or awesomegram. TBH, I'm not so sure if any of the two solutions are worth the trouble we'd bring upon both ourself and the users.

Agree on the too much trouble with renaming anything but the import. I would stick with something close to python_telegram_bot, I like underscores

AFAIK the only other project providing a telegram package is telegram which doesn't even do anything

But that's exactly the issue imo. People see import telegram and think "well, I will do a pip install telegram", this works and than they complain in the group. Having an unique import name will make them think, Im sure of it.

Regarding structure: In your proposed solution, would python-telegram-bot contain anything directly? Is having to type an additional .telegram worth the added clarity?

The main import will only contain subdirectories/modules/however you want to call them. And I do think it is worth the clarity, yes.

basename.ext instead of (basename.)telegram.ext sounds interesting, but it only makes sense if we add a basename. Same for .utils - here we'd also still need telegram/ext.utils for things are exclusively used for the internals (e.g. type aliases, timestamp encodings & such).

Hm, the whole idea was adding a basename? Not sure I get the but part. And we can either add telegram/ext specific util modules, or maybe we do basename.utils.telegram and basename.utils.ext.

In any case, even if we decide to continue discussion in this direction, I guess we can still first go ahead with the changes mentioned above. Renaming/ordering the packages can still be done an the end of v14 phase 1 or after phase 2.

Sure.

But that's exactly the issue imo. People see import telegram and think "well, I will do a pip install telegram", this works and than they complain in the group. Having an unique import name will make them think, Im sure of it.

you're right, that's a point I missed. I guess this is also the reason for this

Urgh, yeah, no underscores then

and next line

Agree on the too much trouble with renaming anything but the import. I would stick with something close to python_telegram_bot, I like underscores

Whaaaaat? :P I do see how python_telegram_bot is nicely close to the project name, but it's also long und underscores are probably harder to type than letters …

Uh, I made an upsi there. I wanted to suggest import ptb, which is really short and looks cool, but ptb exists on pypi, so no improvement there. Maybe we have to stick with a long solution? import pythontelegrambot.

Its long, but you only import once.

Meh … We should probably get opinions from the others on this before we get lost in discussion possible names :D

Its long, but you only import once.

once per file, though

We should be able to get the telegram PyPI package name. See PyPI Help and
abandoned projects. In this case, it seems that we may be able to contact the owner here and ask them to transfer it to us.

Totally forgot that this is possible :D Question is, what would we do if we had access to that pypi project?

• publish a copy of PTB as telegram? Is that transparent?
• Rename the project from PTB to telegram? (This will lead to more name conflicts. E.g. https://github.com/telegram is already taken, a domain telegram.some-tld will also not be that easy to find, and trying to secure meaningful group/channel names on TG itself will be near impossible … )

@Bibo-Joshi Pretty sure harshil meant PTB, not telegram

Question is, what would we do if we had access to that pypi project?

Hmm, good points. How about this:

We add this requirement in requirements.txt:
telegram!=0.0.1

And iirc, ever since pip v20, it won't allow conflicting requirements to be installed. So users will get a warning and they'll then uninstall telegram (if installed)

@harshil21 Doesn't stop them from installing telegram and complaining it wont work, but maybe eliminates the namespace issue, jup.