I'm very much afraid we are in a situation where we have a documented DEP process which isn't actually enforced, nor does it document what we actually do.
Python's PEP process is useful as the document evolves while the design evolves. What we do with DEPs is different, we first design something, then we document the design decision, often mostly because DEPs are a required document. We don't get what we could from DEPs as they are written too late. Could we try an approach where we *first* require a DEP, then have the design discussion? - Anssi On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Shai Berger <s...@platonix.com> wrote: > On Monday 09 May 2016 05:06:47 James Bennett wrote: >> Whee, this thread got big! >> >> The takeaway I'm getting here is that we should be careful about what we >> adopt into core and when; I'm going to take a couple days and write up some >> notes on what I think a good conservative approach would look like, and ask >> for feedback on that. >> > > Looking at what we just had in other threads, this is probably DEP-worthy; > even if the results end up being a relatively small modification, it would be > helpful to record why we decided to reject the other suggestions. > > Shai. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1HrKje7%3DQLi-51sw4ZRSY3jFE1VTu_BKsL1y4u2EiVRJQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
