PyPA-Committers December 2021

pypa-committers@python.org

22 participants
3 discussions

Vote: +1 to Mark PEP-660 final or -1 to keep it provisional
by Bernat Gabor 06 Jan '22

06 Jan '22

https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-660-editable-installs-for-pep-517-style-bu… Stéphane Bidoul raised the question of whether we should mark PEP-660 (editable installs) final now or not. Me and Paul Moore have differing opinions on this so we're calling a vote of the members. - Reasons to mark it final as Stéphane said: *PEP 660 has now been implemented in pip, flit, enscons, hatchling, pdm, poetry (merged by not released).* - Reasons why I think we should not mark it final: *You’ll only find out what gaps the standard has once it’s widely used. IMHO enough is not a few backends that are overall not that often used adopts it. But enough should be when the majority of the projects using it adopt it (e.g. 80% of projects). Now I can see this by either setuptools implementing it or people moving away from using setuptools in time. Most projects that currently implement the standard don’t provide a generic build framework, as setuptools does, but instead only a subset so they don’t necessarily expose the current standards potential issues (think e.g. flit is restricting itself currently to purely toml configuration driven and avoids having a build step).* I'll start the voting, from my side it's -1, aka keep it provisional for now. All the best, Bernat

14 26

PyPA vote: specifications discussions on discuss.python.org
by Thomas Kluyver 27 Dec '21

27 Dec '21

Hi all, It came up recently that the specifications process page (https://www.pypa.io/en/latest/specifications/ ) requires discussions on the distutils-sig mailing list, but in practice most of our packaging related discussions occur on https://discuss.python.org/c/packaging/14 now, and distutils-sig is barely used any more. There is a PR to update the specifications page to refer to the Discourse forum: https://github.com/pypa/pypa.io/pull/80 I believe this requires a PyPA vote (PEP 609 says that votes are required for "changes to how the PyPA operates, including but not limited to changes to its specification and governance processes..."). We've effectively already made the change in practice by not forcing people to post on distutils-sig, but if we've written down a governance document, we ought to follow it. So, please vote on requiring discussion of new/changed specs on the packaging board of discuss.python.org, instead of distutils-sig. +1 from me. Thomas

17 17

Your vote required - accept flit within PyPA
by Thomas Kluyver 01 Dec '21

01 Dec '21

As the main maintainer of Flit (https://flit.readthedocs.io/ ), I would like the project to join the PyPA. There was a preliminary discussion on Discourse (https://discuss.python.org/t/should-flit-become-a-pypa-project/11854 ), and Paul Moore agreed to second my call for a vote. According to PEP 609, we'll hold a vote for 7 days, and require a 2/3 majority to accept the project. +1 from me (of course) Thanks, Thomas

25 28

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

PyPA-Committers December 2021