> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > [1] One downsides of managing PEPs as PRs against the packaging specs > is that there is no easy quotable term to refer to them by - we could, > and probably should, use the PR number. And as a consequence, it's > hard to quickly find the text because there's no simple form for the > URL (again mitigated by using the PR number).
I've merged the two PRs and given them numbers, Robert's PEP is PEP 516 and Nathaniel's is PEP 517. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
