On 18 September 2014 10:08, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 17, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps we should make that official policy? Anything in PEP 426 and > PEP 459 (and other packaging metadata and installation database > related PEPs) needs to be trialled in distlib/distil before the PEPs > can be accepted? distlib could operate permanently under a PEP 411 > style "provisional API" guideline, and if folks aren't comfortable > with "this may break without warning", then they can stick to the > stable packaging/pip layer. > > > I’m OK with calling out this relationship though I don’t think it should > be a mandatory thing. I think we’re all adults and able to figure out when > it makes sense to trial it in distil/distlib or not.
Works for me. I do suspect we're going to want to trial PEP 426 and the PEP 459 metadata extensions :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
