Discussion on PEP 517 seems to have settled down, and I believe that Nick said he was about ready to accept it. Is everyone involved satisfied with the current state? Or is there anything else you think should be considered before accepting it? https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/
Go for it. On 11 September 2017 at 11:36, Thomas Kluyver <thomas@kluyver.me.uk> wrote:
Discussion on PEP 517 seems to have settled down, and I believe that Nick said he was about ready to accept it. Is everyone involved satisfied with the current state? Or is there anything else you think should be considered before accepting it?
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Are we waiting on anything then? Just Nick officially accepting the PEP? Or did I miss something while catching up on over 2 weeks of emails? I ask not only to help close this long chapter of packaging behind us, but because I'm leading a PyLadies workshop next month on packaging and it would be awesome to say "this is the future" (or "this is the bleeding edge" if Thomas gets flit updated before the workshop) vs. "this is *probably* be the future". :) On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 at 03:43 Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
Go for it.
On 11 September 2017 at 11:36, Thomas Kluyver <thomas@kluyver.me.uk> wrote:
Discussion on PEP 517 seems to have settled down, and I believe that Nick said he was about ready to accept it. Is everyone involved satisfied with the current state? Or is there anything else you think should be considered before accepting it?
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
On 22 September 2017 at 02:54, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Are we waiting on anything then? Just Nick officially accepting the PEP? Or did I miss something while catching up on over 2 weeks of emails?
I'm waiting for explicit sign-off (either public or private) from a couple of folks. They're aware I'm waiting to hear back from them, but they're also busy people :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 11 September 2017 at 20:36, Thomas Kluyver <thomas@kluyver.me.uk> wrote:
Discussion on PEP 517 seems to have settled down, and I believe that Nick said he was about ready to accept it. Is everyone involved satisfied with the current state? Or is there anything else you think should be considered before accepting it?
I've heard back off-list from the folks I was waiting to hear from, and I'm very happy to say that I'm provisionally accepting PEP 517, as defined in https://www.pypa.io/en/latest/specifications/#provisional-acceptance That means folks are now free to go start updating the reference tooling based on the PEP, but for the time being, we reserve the right to make further changes to the specification based on our real world experience with those initial implementations. Thank you Thomas and Nathanial for your persistence in working through all the feedback received on the proposal, and thus enabling a significant step forward for the overall Python packaging ecosystem :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 29 September 2017 at 07:38, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Thomas and Nathanial for your persistence in working through all the feedback received on the proposal, and thus enabling a significant step forward for the overall Python packaging ecosystem :)
Yay! This has been a long and difficult discussion for everyone. Thanks to all involved for their patience and willingness to compromise :-) This is a major achievement. Paul
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> writes:
I've heard back off-list from the folks I was waiting to hear from, and I'm very happy to say that I'm provisionally accepting PEP 517, as defined in https://www.pypa.io/en/latest/specifications/#provisional-acceptance
Good news. You might want to update the PEP document again, though; <URL:https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/#rrovisional-acceptance> has the title “Rrovisional acceptance” :-) -- \ “I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I | `\ am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I | _o__) meant.” —Robert J. McCloskey | Ben Finney
Spelling mistake fixed! And a huge thank you to everyone for trudging forward with this and reaching this point. I think this will be a real boon for the community. On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 at 01:08 Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> writes:
I've heard back off-list from the folks I was waiting to hear from, and I'm very happy to say that I'm provisionally accepting PEP 517, as defined in https://www.pypa.io/en/latest/specifications/#provisional-acceptance
Good news. You might want to update the PEP document again, though; <URL:https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/#rrovisional-acceptance> has the title “Rrovisional acceptance” :-)
-- \ “I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I | `\ am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I | _o__) meant.” —Robert J. McCloskey | Ben Finney
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
participants (5)
-
Ben Finney -
Brett Cannon -
Nick Coghlan -
Paul Moore -
Thomas Kluyver