Also, I disagree with this point. I think it's still possible (and in fact preferable) to have setuptools and pip 'test this out' with appropriate fallbacks before opening this up to the wider community. Most people wouldn't even notice because they wouldn't be using HEAD.

2017-08-18 15:28 GMT-04:00 Thomas Kluyver <thomas@kluyver.me.uk>:
I wouldn't expect established tools like pip & setuptools to accept pull requests implementing a PEP which is still under discussion and subject to change. They will naturally want a stable, accepted spec before they consider merging code for it.

We've probably all wished that the discussion could be brought to a swift conclusion. But there are real questions to work out, and people have many other things to pay attention to. I'm frustrated by how long it's taking as well, but there's no magic button anyone can press to make it go quickly.

Thomas




On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 08:17 PM, xoviat wrote:
At this point, I can only offer implementations as I have been attempting to do (some of which are outdated because the PEP has changed), but I cannot make anyone pay attention to or accept my pull requests and it seems I cannot accelerate the discussion here.

2017-08-18 14:08 GMT-05:00 xoviat <xoviat@gmail.com>:
I have attempted to implement prototype machinery here and here, but it's been widely ignored IHMO because as Thomas said, the spec keeps changing. 

2017-08-18 12:37 GMT-05:00 Thomas Kluyver <thomas@kluyver.me.uk>:

There's prototype machinery to call the hooks here, though it's outdated because the spec keeps changing:

There's a prototype backend in a branch of flit, but it's even more outdated:


On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 06:27 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:

Apart from the issues, can we get some prototype implementations?


On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 13:24 xoviat <xoviat@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas:


What are the specific issues that need to be worked out? 


Regards,


xoviat

2017-08-18 3:09 GMT-05:00 Thomas Kluyver <thomas@kluyver.me.uk>:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 07:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The other aspect I'm not clear on is whether or not both PEP authors
> are otherwise happy for the current version to be *considered* for
> acceptance

Nathaniel has mentioned to me a list of issues he sees that we still
need to work through. So I think we're going to be working on this for a
while yet.

Thomas
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org