<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 16:08, Tarek Ziadé <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ziade.tarek@gmail.com">ziade.tarek@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I think we've reached a consensus on those two PEPs.<br>
<br>
Although, there's one last point that was forgotten in the discussions<br>
: I've introduced "rc" in the pre-releases markers, so PEP 386 is<br>
compatible with Python's own version scheme. "rc" comes right after<br>
"c" in the sorting. It's slightly redundant with the "c" marker but I<br>
don't think this really matters as long as consumers know how to order<br>
them (a < b < c < rc). I have also stated that "c" is the preferred<br>
marker for third party projects, from PEP 386 point of view.<br>
<br>
Is there anything else I can do to make those two PEPs accepted ?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As you said, consensus has been reached, so just Guido's BDFL stamp of approval is all I can think of.</div><div><br>
</div><div>-Brett</div></div>