On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 7:04 AM Petr Viktorin <encu...@gmail.com> wrote: > IMO, there should be a PEP for wide-reaching changes like bpo-40521, and > the PEP should be actually *approved* before such changes are made.
FWIW, I plan on posting a PEP by the end of the week regarding per-interpreter GIL and the related work. > In bpo-46006 itself, there are two proposed PRs, each corresponding to a > slightly different vision of how subinterpreters should be isolated. I > don't know which is right. If we had a PEP, I could read it and decide, > but I can't -- the people driving this effort have different ideas of > the big picture. Victor's goal is the same as mine. The only difference here is the steps involved. (In this case, the interned strings were made per-interpreter prematurely.) I'm clarifying this in that PEP. -eroc _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/VGOAFPWNOJRTZBX6YH2D4WRKY2CIH22B/ Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
