On 14Sep2020 18:17, Terry Reedy wrote:
>On 9/14/2020 5:25 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>>On 14Sep2020 01:16, Ned Deily wrote:
>>>My suggestion would be to open one BPO issue for "adding PEP
>>>references to documentation" and then creating PRs as needed against
>>>it. As you probably know, the d
On 9/14/2020 5:25 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 14Sep2020 01:16, Ned Deily wrote:
I'll make some PRs. How to submit? Here, or a BPO or something?
My suggestion would be to open one BPO issue for "adding PEP references to
documentation" and then creating PRs as needed against it. As you prob
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:49 PM Jeremy Kloth
wrote:
> It seems that python-checkins isn't receiving any new commits since
> the 8th of September. A quick check of the github page shows activity
> since then, as do the buildbots.
>
> Just a heads up.
Does anyone know whether the python-checkin
Maybe this is relevant?
https://discuss.python.org/t/webhook-mailer-sends-emails-without-subjects/1974/4
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:48 PM Jeremy Kloth
wrote:
> It seems that python-checkins isn't receiving any new commits since
> the 8th of September. A quick check of the github page shows acti
It seems that python-checkins isn't receiving any new commits since
the 8th of September. A quick check of the github page shows activity
since then, as do the buildbots.
Just a heads up.
--
Jeremy Kloth
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@pytho
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:08 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
> I would honestly argue that if the language spec doesn't clearly explain
> the motivation behind something then that should be directly addressed
> rather than link back to the PEP. We already have an issue with people
> misinterpreting the P
I would honestly argue that if the language spec doesn't clearly explain
the motivation behind something then that should be directly addressed
rather than link back to the PEP. We already have an issue with people
misinterpreting the PEPs as documentation, trying to keep them up-to-date,
etc. and
Agreed. To prevent the docs from going stale, the "Originally proposed in
:pep:`XXX`." wording should probably be used for *all* of the new links, not
just the ones that are currently out-of-date.
Depending on the scope of these changes, we could also just consider adding a
new ".. pepadded:: X
Linking to a PEP for the historical record is fine, but let’s please make it
clear that the PEP is both not the documentation for any feature, and may
indeed be out of date. PEPs are deliberately not updated as features evolve.
Cheers,
-Barry
> On Sep 14, 2020, at 09:38, David Antonini wrote:
On 14Sep2020 01:16, Ned Deily wrote:
>> I'll make some PRs. How to submit? Here, or a BPO or something?
>
>My suggestion would be to open one BPO issue for "adding PEP references to
>documentation" and then creating PRs as needed against it. As you probably
>know, the devguide has the details i
10 matches
Mail list logo
