On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> wrote: > FWIW I don't think those peps should be rejected simply because I didn't > follow either for the 3.4 release schedule. I think they should both have > their day in the court of public opinion. (Of course, maybe that day has > already passed.)
Martin wanted to mark them rejected a while ago - reaction was decidedly mixed, and the burden of proof to justify the extra workload and complexity certainly wasn't met. I asked him to hold off because I was planning to update 413 to the simple "early alphas" idea, but: 1. That's up to the RM rather than really needing a PEP 2. Even if it was a PEP level suggestion, a new PEP would be better for a new idea anyway At the moment, with the "3.4" used throughout the examples in both PEPs, it's a little confusing w.r.t the actual 3.4 release PEP. I could live with "Deferred" instead of "Rejected", but one or the other should happen. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
