On May 22, 2018, at 12:44, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > Hm, what's the cost of those extra repos? As long as they have consistent > names (e.g. pep-1234) they're easy to ignore right? Or does GitHub have a > quota of repos per org?
I think there is a quota for non-paying organizations, but I’m not sure. I was just thinking about clutter on https://github.com/python but maybe it won’t be so bad with… > I was thinking of a workflow where the pep author initially creates the repo > under their own username and directs discussion there. Then when their PEP is > accepted (or rejected!) they can donate their repo to the python org. I know > such a thing is possible (we did it for the mypy and typeshed repos). … +1! > Ironically for me GitHub is less linear than email. It's easier to ask people > to open a new issue than it is to ask them to start a new thread. So e.g. if > a discussion starts about a survey of feature X in various languages, when it > veers off into a tutorial for a specific language that could be a separate > issue, and the meta-discussion on how the list of languages should be > selected could be made another issue. I see what you’re saying. Yes, that could work if the PEP author is really diligent about shunting detours into new issues. I’ve just found that within PRs or issues, the linearity can be quite difficult to follow. (FWIW, IMHO, GitLab does better here, but that’s besides the point.) > I think Mark Shannon volunteered PEP 576 (though so far he hasn't created a > separate repo, he's just created a PR for the peps repo IIUC). I hope Nick > will also volunteer PEP 577 for this. +1 -Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
