Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] PEP 581 (Using GitHub issues for CPython) is accepted
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 09:51, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:11:14 -0700 Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the rest of the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
For future reference, is it possible to post the Steering Council's reflection and rationale on the PEP?
Also, is there an archive of the discussions anywhere? The PEP says discussions happened on Zulip, but I don't follow that and I don't know where I can find an archived copy of the discussions.
It's not as if I'm going to object to the PEP (I'd have participated in the discussions if I had a strong opinion) but I am curious.
Paul
Hi Paul, Le mer. 15 mai 2019 à 11:40, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> a écrit :
Also, is there an archive of the discussions anywhere? The PEP says discussions happened on Zulip, but I don't follow that and I don't know where I can find an archived copy of the discussions.
Well, the PEP has been discussed a lot at many places since May 2018.
The PEP 581 has been (first?) discussed at the Language Summit which was part of Pycon US 2018 (May 2018).
Discussion on the PR:
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/681/
Multiple threads on Discourse:
https://discuss.python.org/t/move-pep-581-discussion/873 https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-581-using-github-issues/535 https://discuss.python.org/t/what-are-next-steps-for-pep-581/864 https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-process-after-pep-8016/558/4
Thread on python-dev:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-March/156626.html
Threads on python-committers:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-May/005428.html https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-June/005506.html https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-July/005657.html
Discussion on Zulip Chat:
https://python.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/130206-pep581
The Steering Council discussed it internally as well:
https://github.com/python/steering-council/blob/master/updates/2019-04-26_st...
The PEP 581 and 588 have been discussed at the Language Summit which was part of Pycon US 2019 (2 weeks ago).
Victor
Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 15:56, Victor Stinner <vstinner@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Paul, Le mer. 15 mai 2019 à 11:40, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> a écrit :
Also, is there an archive of the discussions anywhere? The PEP says discussions happened on Zulip, but I don't follow that and I don't know where I can find an archived copy of the discussions.
Well, the PEP has been discussed a lot at many places since May 2018.
Thanks for all of these. I appreciate the time you took locating them for me. But I do have to say that I still can't really follow any useful "thread of discussion" - it all seems very fragmented, and it's difficult to see the progress towards consensus. Maybe that's just because I'm too used to mailing lists :-)
The PEP 581 has been (first?) discussed at the Language Summit which was part of Pycon US 2018 (May 2018).
Was that written up, or is it all just from people's memories by now?
Ah - I don't really follow this sort of PR discussion, as the github emails don't tend to have sufficient context on what's being said, so I (mostly) gave up a long time ago. Also, I tend to assume that discussions on PRs are mostly about details of wording, and substantive changes will be dealt with in a wider forum. I wonder if I should be following PRs on the PEPs repository more closely...?
Multiple threads on Discourse:
https://discuss.python.org/t/move-pep-581-discussion/873 https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-581-using-github-issues/535 https://discuss.python.org/t/what-are-next-steps-for-pep-581/864 https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-process-after-pep-8016/558/4
Thread on python-dev:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-March/156626.html
Threads on python-committers:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-May/005428.html https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-June/005506.html https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-July/005657.html
I saw these, but didn't get much of a sense of progress towards agreement. Again, maybe just because they were lots of fragmented threads and locations.
Discussion on Zulip Chat:
I can't see this without logging in :-(
The Steering Council discussed it internally as well:
https://github.com/python/steering-council/blob/master/updates/2019-04-26_st...
I did see that, I was more wondering what led to that decision (whether it was a general consensus from the core devs that it was a good move, or mainly the SC's own view that prevailed).
The PEP 581 and 588 have been discussed at the Language Summit which was part of Pycon US 2019 (2 weeks ago).
Again, has there been any write up of that (yet)?
As I say, I don't object to the decision, I'm more just trying to better understand the process of being involved under the new regime of the SC, combined with multiple fragmented forums for discussion. It feels a lot harder these days to keep track of all the discussions/decisions going on. But maybe that's a good thing - only people with a genuine interest get involved, and I can spend less of my time reading mailing lists! :-)
Paul
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:18 AM Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 15:56, Victor Stinner <vstinner@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Paul, Le mer. 15 mai 2019 à 11:40, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> a écrit :
Also, is there an archive of the discussions anywhere? The PEP says discussions happened on Zulip, but I don't follow that and I don't know where I can find an archived copy of the discussions.
Well, the PEP has been discussed a lot at many places since May 2018.
Thanks for all of these. I appreciate the time you took locating them for me. But I do have to say that I still can't really follow any useful "thread of discussion" - it all seems very fragmented, and it's difficult to see the progress towards consensus. Maybe that's just because I'm too used to mailing lists :-)
The PEP 581 has been (first?) discussed at the Language Summit which was part of Pycon US 2018 (May 2018).
Was that written up, or is it all just from people's memories by now?
There's at least https://lwn.net/Articles/754779/. Don't remember if other people wrote up their own summary.
[SNIP]
The PEP 581 and 588 have been discussed at the Language Summit which
was part of Pycon US 2019 (2 weeks ago).
Again, has there been any write up of that (yet)?
Not yet, but A. Jesse Jiryu Davis attended so the PSF could blog about it.
As I say, I don't object to the decision, I'm more just trying to better understand the process of being involved under the new regime of the SC,
I think everyone is. :)
In the case of this PEP the various members of the SC have been keeping up with the PEP and its discussions over the year that the PEP has been around, we discussed the pros and cons that people brought up, thought through what will be required for us to do the migration if the PEP was accepted, and in the end decided it was worth the effort.
combined with multiple fragmented forums for discussion.
A PEP is being worked on to try and propose a way to straighten this all out, but travel, life, etc. has been keeping that one from being finished. I've added discussing the status of it to our next meeting's agenda.
It feels a lot harder these days to keep track of all the discussions/decisions going on. But maybe that's a good thing - only people with a genuine interest get involved, and I can spend less of my time reading mailing lists! :-)
Obviously YMMV, but I actually find it easier. :)
-Brett
Paul
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Hello,
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:18 PM Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 15:56, Victor Stinner <vstinner@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Paul, Le mer. 15 mai 2019 à 11:40, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> a écrit :
Also, is there an archive of the discussions anywhere? The PEP says discussions happened on Zulip, but I don't follow that and I don't know where I can find an archived copy of the discussions.
Well, the PEP has been discussed a lot at many places since May 2018.
Thanks for all of these. I appreciate the time you took locating them for me. But I do have to say that I still can't really follow any useful "thread of discussion" - it all seems very fragmented, and it's difficult to see the progress towards consensus. Maybe that's just because I'm too used to mailing lists :-)
I share the same concerns: posted several links but missed a few others);
- the discussion was fragmented between zulip/discuss/github/python-dev/python-committers/sprints/pycons and very difficult to follow, even for interested people (Victor already
- the progress toward consensus was not clear and the approval came somewhat unexpectedly (it was mentioned a couple of weeks ago on https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2019-April/006705.html and AFAICT no further discussion took place in public forums since then);
In addition: the core-sprints last year and more recently Berker pointed out some
- the PEP contains several factual errors. I pointed this out during
on GitHub: https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1013 ; 2) the "discussions-to" header of the PEP points to the zulip stream. The stream has not been active for 6 months (it got a few new messages today, the previous activity was in Dec 2018); 3) most of the discussions linked by Victor happened last year. Unless I missed some, the only discussions happened this year are the two on Discuss from February (with 3 messages each from a total of 5 authors), and the python-dev thread from March (with 12 messages from 7 authors). One of the two Discuss threads was a inquiry about the process (https://discuss.python.org/t/move-pep-581-discussion/873); 4) Berker is/was writing a competing PEP, in order to address the problems of PEP 581 more effectively since his comments on GitHub haven't been addressed; 5) next week a student is supposed to start working for the PSF on b.p.o and Roundup as part of Google Summer of Code (http://python-gsoc.org/psf_ideas.html); 6) PEP 8016 says "The council should look for ways to use these powers as little as possible. Instead of voting, it's better to seek consensus. Instead of ruling on individual PEPs, it's better to define a standard process for PEP decision making.";
To summarize, I feel the approval of this PEP is premature and that consensus was reached in a way that wasn't very transparent, without considering some of the concerns. (This might also be a symptom of a wider problem caused by the fragmentation of the discussions between the old MLs, discuss, zulip, IRC, GitHub PRs and issues, and IRL meetings, but this is a separate topic.)
Best Regards, Ezio Melotti
The PEP 581 has been (first?) discussed at the Language Summit which was part of Pycon US 2018 (May 2018).
Was that written up, or is it all just from people's memories by now?
Ah - I don't really follow this sort of PR discussion, as the github emails don't tend to have sufficient context on what's being said, so I (mostly) gave up a long time ago. Also, I tend to assume that discussions on PRs are mostly about details of wording, and substantive changes will be dealt with in a wider forum. I wonder if I should be following PRs on the PEPs repository more closely...?
Multiple threads on Discourse:
https://discuss.python.org/t/move-pep-581-discussion/873 https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-581-using-github-issues/535 https://discuss.python.org/t/what-are-next-steps-for-pep-581/864 https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-process-after-pep-8016/558/4
Thread on python-dev:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-March/156626.html
Threads on python-committers:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-May/005428.html https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-June/005506.html https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-July/005657.html
I saw these, but didn't get much of a sense of progress towards agreement. Again, maybe just because they were lots of fragmented threads and locations.
Discussion on Zulip Chat:
I can't see this without logging in :-(
The Steering Council discussed it internally as well:
https://github.com/python/steering-council/blob/master/updates/2019-04-26_st...
I did see that, I was more wondering what led to that decision (whether it was a general consensus from the core devs that it was a good move, or mainly the SC's own view that prevailed).
The PEP 581 and 588 have been discussed at the Language Summit which was part of Pycon US 2019 (2 weeks ago).
Again, has there been any write up of that (yet)?
As I say, I don't object to the decision, I'm more just trying to better understand the process of being involved under the new regime of the SC, combined with multiple fragmented forums for discussion. It feels a lot harder these days to keep track of all the discussions/decisions going on. But maybe that's a good thing - only people with a genuine interest get involved, and I can spend less of my time reading mailing lists! :-)
Paul
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:44 PM Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com> wrote:
I share the same concerns:
- the PEP contains several factual errors. I pointed this out during
the core-sprints last year and more recently Berker pointed out some on GitHub: https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1013 ; 4) Berker is/was writing a competing PEP, in order to address the problems of PEP 581 more effectively since his comments on GitHub haven't been addressed;
This concerns me a bit. The PEP/announcement acknowledges the work Ezio and Berker. However, it does not express if the PEP had addressed their review comments or had the current maintainers on-board with the proposal. I was of the assumption that if the current maintainers (/domain experts) were on-board, then it will be easier for the rest of us to adopt the new changes.
Also, Github has just changed its export control. As an international team, does it affect us and PEP581? Maybe better consult the lawyer first?
http://help.github.com/en/articles/github-and-export-controls
| | Xiang Zhang | | 邮箱angwerzx@126.com |
签名由 网易邮箱大师 定制
On 05/18/2019 17:12, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:44 PM Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com> wrote:
I share the same concerns: 1) the PEP contains several factual errors. I pointed this out during the core-sprints last year and more recently Berker pointed out some on GitHub: https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1013 ; 4) Berker is/was writing a competing PEP, in order to address the problems of PEP 581 more effectively since his comments on GitHub haven't been addressed;
This concerns me a bit. The PEP/announcement acknowledges the work Ezio and Berker. However, it does not express if the PEP had addressed their review comments or had the current maintainers on-board with the proposal. I was of the assumption that if the current maintainers (/domain experts) were on-board, then it will be easier for the rest of us to adopt the new changes.
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:05 PM Xiang Zhang <angwerzx@126.com> wrote:
Also, Github has just changed its export control. As an international team, does it affect us and PEP581? Maybe better consult the lawyer first?
http://help.github.com/en/articles/github-and-export-controls
From a quick non-expert read, that document seems to say that github.com is subject to the same export control laws as every other US company, but they don't do much to enforce them. ("Users are responsible", "Github.com has not been audited", etc.) Can you give any more details? You said something changed – what was it? Is there a reason to think that github is different in this respect from any other platform we might use, including self-hosting? (For better or worse, the PSF is also a US corporation subject to US law...)
-n
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
Ahh sorry, not just updated but seems for some time, though not long, seems starting from May. Today due to some reason this news populates my social media. I don't understand what's the affects of this but definitely disappointed because this brings some risks to Python users. And this seems something not we can change.
| | Xiang Zhang | | 邮箱angwerzx@126.com |
签名由 网易邮箱大师 定制
On 05/21/2019 12:28, Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:05 PM Xiang Zhang <angwerzx@126.com> wrote:
Also, Github has just changed its export control. As an international team, does it affect us and PEP581? Maybe better consult the lawyer first?
http://help.github.com/en/articles/github-and-export-controls
From a quick non-expert read, that document seems to say that github.com is subject to the same export control laws as every other US company, but they don't do much to enforce them. ("Users are responsible", "Github.com has not been audited", etc.) Can you give any more details? You said something changed – what was it? Is there a reason to think that github is different in this respect from any other platform we might use, including self-hosting? (For better or worse, the PSF is also a US corporation subject to US law...)
-n
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
Paul Moore schrieb am 15.05.19 um 17:18:
I don't really follow this sort of PR discussion, as the github emails don't tend to have sufficient context on what's being said
I agree, although there is also an upside to it. PR discussions can be more easily constrained to reflect the exact reasoning behind the specific change, whereas more general PEP discussions, especially in mailing list threads, are more likely to cover broader (sets of) topics and/or get distracted and jump between topics. So that's an improvement, I think.
Not every PEP change is easy to discuss as a PR, though.
multiple fragmented forums for discussion. It feels a lot harder these days to keep track of all the discussions/decisions going on.
+1
Discussions easily get out of the scope of a PEP PR or the original topic, which makes it impossible to know when something relevant happens to get discussed in one of a dozen places that can be used to discuss them.
E-mail threads obviously have the same problem, but at least they are still part of the same mailing list, so subject changes are relatively easy to detect when … the subject changes.
Same for conferences, they are great for discussing complex topics and working together to improve the understanding of a matter, but then someone has to sit down and write up the outcomes so that the general discussion can start (or continue) in the public places.
I would prefer a sort of an "open first" principle, where things are discussed on python-dev (Python) or python-committers (processes), unless there is a reason not to (such as PRs, SIGs, voting, …). That gives everyone a good handle to stop a discussion and say "let's move this to place X".
More generally, there needs to be a simple scheme or checklist that makes it easy to detect when a discussion should be moved elsewhere, and preferably to which place exactly. At least for the 80% case.
Stefan
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 2:41 PM Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> wrote:
Paul Moore schrieb am 15.05.19 um 17:18:
multiple fragmented forums for discussion. It feels a lot harder these days to keep track of all the discussions/decisions going on.
+1
True, two years ago I was able to follow everything [1] via an email and an IRC client. These days I have no idea what's going on with CPython development.
And the "this is a clash between different generations of developers" argument doesn't really apply to me as I'm quite happy to use these new tools outside of CPython development.
--Berker
[1] bug reports, patches, ideas suggested by users, technical and/or PEP discussions, status of buildbots
participants (9)
-
Berker Peksağ -
Brett Cannon -
Ezio Melotti -
Nathaniel Smith -
Paul Moore -
Senthil Kumaran -
Stefan Behnel -
Victor Stinner -
Xiang Zhang