This uses a pretty silly signal of readiness. It only counts a package as "ready" if the package maintainer actively went in and added 3.11 to the package metadata. It notably does _not_ count a package as "ready" if the metadata specifies a particular version of Python _and above_, nor if the metadata indicates the package is compatible with _all_ versions of Python 3. Goes without saying that it does not attempt to install packages to see if they break, or run tests, or anything else that might be a better signal of "ready," and even those methods might not be 100% accurate either.
Asking package maintainers to update their setup.py or whatever for every Python release is just crazy when actual breaking changes are fairly rare. This is nothing like the similar site that existed during the Python 2 -> 3 transition. It would just be more busywork for already-busy open source Python package maintainers, most of whom do this in the free time.
Since the signal is so weak, I'd go so far as to say usage of the "ready," "supported," or using those green boxes and black checkmarks is deliberately misleading. Feels like a site that exists just to stir up twits on the bird site or something.
Asking package maintainers to update their setup.py or whatever for every Python release is just crazy when actual breaking changes are fairly rare. This is nothing like the similar site that existed during the Python 2 -> 3 transition. It would just be more busywork for already-busy open source Python package maintainers, most of whom do this in the free time.
Since the signal is so weak, I'd go so far as to say usage of the "ready," "supported," or using those green boxes and black checkmarks is deliberately misleading. Feels like a site that exists just to stir up twits on the bird site or something.
Nobody should take this seriously.