[python-committers] Re: Requiring PEPs to add/remove modules in the stdlib (and dropping the concept of "provisional")
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 23:27, Brett Cannon wrote: > Update PEP 2 to say a PEP is necessary to add a module to the stdlib > Update PEP 4 to say that a PEP is necessary to deprecate/remove a module > Mark PEP 411 as obsolete and thus dropping the idea of provisional modules These all seem reasonable to me. There's an implication for the Packaging community in that we have used "Provisional" status for PEPs (specifications). But personally, I'm fine with dropping that option - I'm on record saying that I don't like provisional status for packaging standards and won't use it in future. Assuming this proposal gets approved, I will link to the PEP 411 change on the relevant packaging thread, and get the packaging process docs updated to match. Paul ___ python-committers mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/LWTTATI246FCQJKCV6WIWMFKX7AEIG4T/ Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[python-committers] Re: Requiring PEPs to add/remove modules in the stdlib (and dropping the concept of "provisional")
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:23 AM Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 23:27, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > Update PEP 2 to say a PEP is necessary to add a module to the stdlib > > Update PEP 4 to say that a PEP is necessary to deprecate/remove a module > > Mark PEP 411 as obsolete and thus dropping the idea of provisional > modules > > These all seem reasonable to me. > > There's an implication for the Packaging community in that we have > used "Provisional" status for PEPs (specifications). But personally, > I'm fine with dropping that option - I'm on record saying that I don't > like provisional status for packaging standards and won't use it in > future. > This doesn't affect provisional *PEPs*, only *modules*; provisional PEP acceptances are covered under a different PEP (probably PEP 1). -Brett > > Assuming this proposal gets approved, I will link to the PEP 411 > change on the relevant packaging thread, and get the packaging process > docs updated to match. > > Paul > ___ python-committers mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XEEZDGNER7IICHHGLRIZ7GBHTLVHNNAH/ Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[python-committers] Re: Requiring PEPs to add/remove modules in the stdlib (and dropping the concept of "provisional")
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 19:53, Brett Cannon wrote: > This doesn't affect provisional PEPs, only modules; provisional PEP > acceptances are covered under a different PEP (probably PEP 1). Rats :-) Paul ___ python-committers mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/A2BXJ4N3QBDS2APGYKSVG7GWEOEBVKHY/ Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
