FAQ

On 5 September 2015 at 14:24, Marcus Smith wrote:
I don't have a specific problem with the specs living somewhere else
as well, I just don't think moving a lengthy document full of edge cases
from one location to another is going to make things better
If I may, I don't think that really captures Nick's idea.

Right, having more user friendly introductions on packaging.python.org
is a good idea, but it's a separate question. To address that specific
problem, we can paraphrase the semantic versioning compatibility
section from PEP 440:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/#semantic-versioning


I filed a PR along those lines, inserting it as a new subsection under
"Configuring your project"

I think it's about clearly distinguishing the following:

1) Current Specs (for metadata, versioning, pypi etc..)
2) Proposals to adjust or add to the Current Specs

We don't have a clear distinction right now. We just have a series of
PEPs, and it's work to figure out where the actual current spec is at, in
the noise of rationales and transition plans etc...

- So, for #1, maintain documents in PyPUG
- For #2, keep using PEPs
- As PEPs are accepted, update the Spec docs (the version history can
mention what PEP drove the change)

Right. Another potential benefit of this approach is that it means we
can more easily cross-link from the implementor facing specifications
to end user facing parts of the user guide - at the moment, there's no
standard discoverability path from PEPs like PEP 440 to
packaging.python.org at all.


Cheers,
Nick.


--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2017 Grokbase