Nick Coghlan added the comment:
Committed, along with a few other changes, as
http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/24d5623ab21e
Subsequent commit addresses Ezio's comment by changing the phrase to list for
contacting the PEP editors.
The attitude I mainly take to PEP 1 now is that if I notice cases
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
Thanks a lot, Nick. It looks like you also went ahead and took care of issue
16746. :)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16581
___
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
Are there any comments on the patch from the PEP 1 authors? PEP 1 says that I
should assign this to one of the PEP authors. Any takers, or is this something
I can commit on the authors' behalf?
--
___
Python
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
Attaching proposed patch.
The patch also makes some minor stylistic improvements and typo fixes (e.g.
s/work flow/workflow/, s/we/the PEP editors/, and eliminating trailing
whitespace on a few lines).
--
keywords: +patch
Added file:
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
+PEP editorship is by invitation of the current editors. The address
+p...@python.org is a mailing list consisting of PEP editors.
The consisting doesn't sound too well to me, maybe reserved to?
+PEP-related email should be sent to this address (no
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
The consisting doesn't sound too well to me, maybe reserved to?
Reserved for sounds good to me. Originally I was thinking of limited to or
restricted to, but that had a connotation of exclusivity I wanted to avoid.
--
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
From PEP 1: If the PEP author is a Python developer, assign the bug/patch to
him, otherwise assign it to the [a] PEP editor.
Given that the list is small, something else that might make sense is adding a
PEP editors area to the Experts Index in the devguide.
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
Btw, I will prepare a patch that incorporates the information that Barry
provided.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16581
___
Changes by Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org:
--
nosy: +anthony_baxter
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16581
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Nov 30, 2012, at 02:00 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
In particular, PEP 1 should say whether editorship is an invitation-only
status and/or how one becomes a PEP editor. It would also be good if it said
(for transparency) how to go about seeing the current
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
Thanks for providing the info. To clarify, is membership in peps@ restricted
to editors?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16581
___
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment:
On Nov 30, 2012, at 07:55 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
Thanks for providing the info. To clarify, is membership in peps@ restricted
to editors?
Yes. It may not be a perfect overlap, but that's the best we have, and should
be the intent, IMHO.
--
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
+1
I wrote the stuff in PEP 1 about committers acting as editors, but agree
the editor part itself also falls into the currently unwritten, but should
be written category.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
New submission from Chris Jerdonek:
This issue is to define PEP editor (or PEP editors) in PEP 1 before it is
used in the document and to provide certain clarifying information.
In particular, PEP 1 should say whether editorship is an invitation-only status
and/or how one becomes a PEP
14 matches
Mail list logo
