On 7/29/2021 6:17 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 29, 2021, at 05:55, Steve Dower
wrote: Maybe we should have a "Type" other than Standards Track for PEPs that are documenting implementation designs, rather than requirements for standardisation?
Wouldn’t Informational fill that need?
Perhaps, though my understanding was that Informational PEPs aren't tied to specific Python versions (in this case, a CPython release) and are meant to remain "Active" until completely redundant. Maybe if the PEPs got a preamble covering "this describes part of the implementation of CPython as first released in x.y... may have changed since that time... refer to source code" it would be clear enough. We might want to move them to "Final" after implementation though, unlike other Informational PEPs. Seems like there's _just enough_ nuance there to justify a different type. But then, presumably there's also infrastructure around PEP types as well that I'm unaware of (and not volunteering to update!), so those with the investment in it can have it however they'd like :) Cheers, Steve