Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > The reason I think "bootstrap" is a better name at this point I *really* don't want to add to the bike-shedding of the name at this point -- I really don't care. I was just trying to see if I was misunderstanding

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On Mon, 9 May 2016 at 06:42 Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 7 May 2016 at 08:21, Paul Moore wrote: > > On 6 May 2016 at 19:14, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> OK, assuming the Nick will be pronouncing, who wants to write the PEP? > > > > ... and if

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On 7 May 2016 at 08:21, Paul Moore wrote: > On 6 May 2016 at 19:14, Brett Cannon wrote: >> OK, assuming the Nick will be pronouncing, who wants to write the PEP? > > ... and if Nick doesn't want to pronounce, I'm willing to offer to be > BDFL for this one.

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On 8 May 2016 at 09:23, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2016, 12:16 Chris Barker wrote: >> how is this about "bootstrapping" -- to me, bootstrapping is when you need >> X to build X. Isn't this just regular old configuration: you need x,y to >> build

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On Sat, May 7, 2016, 12:16 Chris Barker wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> What fields there will be and their semantics ... >> >>1. Format version (so just deciding on a name -- which also includes >> whether it

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > What fields there will be and their semantics ... > >1. Format version (so just deciding on a name -- which also includes > whether it should be top-level or in a subsection -- and initial value) > 2. The

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On Fri, 6 May 2016 at 16:58 Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 6 May 2016 at 09:40 Donald Stufft wrote: > >> > >> > >> On May 6, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Fri, 6 May 2016 at 09:40 Donald Stufft wrote: >> >> >> On May 6, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> So who is the BDFL on this decision? It seems we need someone to stop

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On 6 May 2016 at 19:14, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2016 at 09:40 Donald Stufft wrote: >> >> >> On May 6, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> So who is the BDFL on this decision? It seems we need someone to stop the >>

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

On Fri, 6 May 2016 at 09:40 Donald Stufft wrote: > > On May 6, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > So who is the BDFL on this decision? It seems we need someone to stop the > bikeshedding on the field name and what file is going to house this >

Re: [Distutils] who is BDFL for the boostrap/requires declaration? (was: moving things forward)

> On May 6, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > So who is the BDFL on this decision? It seems we need someone to stop the > bikeshedding on the field name and what file is going to house this > configuration data. And do we need someone to write a PEP for this