FAQ

On 3 September 2015 at 09:45, Donald Stufft wrote:
On September 1, 2015 at 9:57:50 AM, Daniel Holth (dholth at gmail.com) wrote:
Looks amazing, why don't we merge it.
I think we need to update the PEP or write a new PEP before we add new tags to the implementation.

Right, we're mainly talking about replacing/updating the compatibility
tags in PEP 425. The most expedient way to formalise consensus on that
would be to just write a replacement PEP and have it take precedence
over 425 even for current generation wheel files.


More generally, this an area where I don't think the PEP process is
actually working well for us - I think we'd be better off separating
the "produced artifact" (i.e. versioned interoperability
specifications) from the change management process for those
specifications (i.e. the PEP process). That's the way CPython works,
after all - the released artifacts are the reference interpreter, the
language reference, and the standard library reference, while the PEP
process is a way of negotiating major changes to those. PyPI is
similar - pypi.python.org and its APIs are the released artifact, the
PEPs negotiate changes.


It's only the interoperability specs where we currently follow the RFC
model of having the same document describe both the end result *and*
the rationale for changes from the previous version, and I mostly find
it to be a pain.


Regards,
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