Am 26.09.2010 03:45, schrieb P.J. Eby:
I'm actually a bit surprised people are bringing this up now, since when
I announced the plan to make these changes, I said that nothing would be
changed that would break anything
I think people read this as nothing would be changed, period.
However, you
At 07:15 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Don't see this as a new spec. See it as a procedural issue.
As a procedural issue, PEP 333 is an Informational PEP, in Draft
status, which I'd like to make Final after these amendments. See
http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Amendments_1.0, which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/2010 02:31 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 26.09.2010 03:45, schrieb P.J. Eby:
I'm actually a bit surprised people are bringing this up now, since when
I announced the plan to make these changes, I said that nothing would be
changed that
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
I hadn't realized that PEP 333 was never actually in the 'Final' status
(de facto, it has been so for years, of course). Given that fact, and
PJEs assurances, I think amending the PEP and then immediately declaring
it
I think people read this as nothing would be changed, period.
However, you did make substantial changes to the specification (or else
the whole exercise would have been pointless, I suppose, and you
couldn't have claimed that WSGI is now Python 3-friendly when it
previously was not).
The
I'm sorry, but all this weasel-wording about how these changes aren't
really changes and how this standard wasn't really a standard make me
very uncomfortable. I'm happy approving Final status for the
*original* PEP 333 and I'm happy to approve a new PEP which includes
PJE's corrections. I'm
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
I'm still with Guido here: I'd accept PEP 333 as final in the state it
had last week, give PJE's edits a new PEP number, and accept that as
final right away also.
This sounds like it should make everyone happy - no rewriting of history, and no
On 26 September 2010 19:01, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
I'm still with Guido here: I'd accept PEP 333 as final in the state it
had last week, give PJE's edits a new PEP number, and accept that as
final right away also.
This
I have only done the Python 3-specific changes at this point; the
diff is here if anybody wants to review, nitpick or otherwise comment:
http://svn.python.org/view/peps/trunk/pep-0333.txt?r1=85014r2=85013pathrev=85014
For that matter, if anybody wants to take a crack at updating Python
3's
This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but
I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it
is just a set of textual corrections on the existing PEP 333.
--Guido
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:56 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
I have
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 3:56 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
I have only done the Python 3-specific changes at this point; the diff is
here if anybody wants to review, nitpick or otherwise comment:
http://svn.python.org/view/peps/trunk/pep-0333.txt?r1=85014r2=85013pathrev=85014
At 09:22 PM 9/25/2010 -0400, Jesse Noller wrote:
It seems like it will end up
different enough to be a different specification, closely related to
the original, but different enough to trip up all the people
maintaining current WSGI servers and apps.
The only actual *change* to the spec is
At 02:07 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but
I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it
is just a set of textual corrections on the existing PEP 333.
With the exception of the bytes
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 02:07 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but
I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it
is just a set of textual
14 matches
Mail list logo
