On 26 July 2017 at 15:53, Chris Angelico wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

...

There's unfortunately no completely non-disruptive way to manage this shift (hence why it's taking so long), but we think this is a reasonable approach that allows each distro to devise a migration plan that makes sense for them and their userbase while still allow Python end users to write readable cross-distro code that doesn't particular care whether it's run under Python 2 or Python 3, and for open source Python project maintainers to provide developer guidelines that are entirely independent of particular distro's choices about default Python runtimes.

Before taking this proposal to python-dev, I'd turn the general concept into an actual PR with specific proposed wording changes, but I figured it made sense for us to seek some initial feedback here before doing that.

Draft updated PEP is posted at https://github.com/python/peps/pull/315 I ended up proposing a replacement PEP to supersede 394, rather than proposing changes to 394 itself. It's essentially a PEP 394 superset that allows for a few more "endorsed" configurations for redistributors (essentially saying "Arch's move was ~5 years ahead of its time"), with more of an emphasis on "What might a post-2020 sans-Python-2 platform release look like?" Structurally, it clearly separates the recommendations into 3 distinct sets (ad hoc scripting, app development, and platform publication)

Sounds good to me. (I'm not subbed to linux-sig, though perhaps I should be.) Did I get copied in on this for assistance with the PEP writing? In any case, I'm wholly in favour of the transition.

I'm not sure how you ended up receiving it, unless there's something odd going on with the configuration of linux-sig-owner in the mail server. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia