On 30 January 2016 at 23:45, Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30 January 2016 at 08:58, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I applied both this iteration and the previous one to the PEPs repo in >> order to review it, so modulo caching issues, this latest draft is >> live now. >> >> I also think this version covers everything we need it to cover, so >> I'm going to mark it as Active and point to this post as the >> resolution :) > > I had to see PEP 1 to understand what "Active" means but now I see > that it means that this PEP is approved but subject to indefinite > tinkering: > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#pep-review-resolution
Yeah, getting us away from Information PEPs to normal Standards Track ones is one of the reasons I started tinkering with the way we use the PEP process. We really do want to be using Standards Track, but that requires reference specs and implementations that provide the basis for declaring the PEP "FInal". Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
