On 1 November 2015 at 02:08, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:52 PM, Marcus Smith wrote:
>
>>> If python-dev ends up adopting GitLab for the main PEPs repo, then we
>>> should be able to move the whole process there, rather than needing to
>>> maintain a separate
On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:52 PM, Marcus Smith wrote:
>> If python-dev ends up adopting GitLab for the main PEPs repo, then we
>> should be able to move the whole process there, rather than needing to
>> maintain a separate copy.
>>
>will that be as open as pypa/interoperability-peps? if it's closed
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 at 22:53 Marcus Smith wrote:
>
>
>> If python-dev ends up adopting GitLab for the main PEPs repo, then we
>> should be able to move the whole process there, rather than needing to
>> maintain a separate copy.
>>
> will that be as open as
On 28 October 2015 at 18:02, Ben Finney wrote:
> Marcus Smith writes:
>
>> 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as
>> PRs to pypa/interoperability-peps : )
>
> Please keep the conversation on a mailing list where one
my intention certainly wasn't to try to exclude anybody. for me, it's the
practical matter of the PR UI being more effective than a mailing list
thread (in this case referring to a gist), and that we can track proposals
easier and link to them from issues (in that same repo) and other PyPA
docs.
On 28 Oct 2015 09:32, "Marcus Smith" wrote:
>
> my intention certainly wasn't to try to exclude anybody. for me, it's
the practical matter of the PR UI being more effective than a mailing list
thread (in this case referring to a gist), and that we can track proposals
easier and
Marcus Smith writes:
> 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as
> PRs to pypa/interoperability-peps : )
Please keep the conversation on a mailing list where one can participate
without needing to sign up with any particular service provider.
Your