On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Todd Rovito <rovit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: >>> [snip reasons] >>> OK, I am convinced an info PEP would be a good idea. >> >> Unless anyone objects, I'm happy to be BDFL-delegate for such a PEP. I >> mainly want to ensure we clearly fence off "IDLE-the-application", >> with (in effect) a 6 month release cycle synchronised across versions, >> from the rest of the standard library. > I have not seen much progress on this issue so I thought I would > attempt to draft a PEP. This is my first PEP so go easy on me. > > Attached is a PEP titled "IDLE Enhancement Exception for All > Branches", I am looking for feedback. Thanks.
That's a good start - please forward it to the PEP editors list (p...@python.org) to be posted. The rationale needs to be fleshed out a bit more along the lines of "IDLE is primarily used as an application that ships with Python, rather than as a library module used to build Python applications, that's why it is OK for a different standard to apply". Mentioning the point about Linux distros splitting it out into a separate package would also be useful. NY other two major comments: - be specific about which parts of the code base are covered by the exception - no need for extensive cross-OS testing prior to commit, that's a key part of the role of the buildbots Regards, 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
