In your first plone example you first use plone.app.content, but then present the directory structure of plone.app.command.
Apart from that, the PEP seems legit to me, contentwise. I think some parts are clumsily formulated, but IMO rewriting these parts wouldn't even decrease the text's length or improve readability.
-- Markus (from phone)
"Benoît Bryon"
Hi!
Attached is a an updated proposal for PEP 423. You can also find it online at https://gist.github.com/benoitbryon/2815051
I am attending at EuroPython 2013 in Florence. Isn't it a great opportunity to get feedback and discuss about a PEP? I registered an open-space session and a lightning-talk today!
Some notes about the update...
The main point that was discussed in the previous proposal was the "top-level namespace relates to code ownership rule". Here is a quote from Antoine Pitrou:
Le 27/06/2012 12:50, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:08:45 +0200 Benoît Bryon
wrote: Hi,
Here is an informational PEP proposal: http://hg.python.org/peps/file/52767ab7e140/pep-0423.txt
Could you review it for style, consistency and content? There is one Zen principle this PEP is missing:
Flat is better than nested.
This PEP seems to promote the practice of having a top-level namespace denote ownership. I think it should do the reverse: promote meaningful top-level packages (e.g. "sphinx") as standard practice, and allow an exception for when a piece of software is part of a larger organizational body.
So, the main change in the proposal I'm sending today is the removal of
this "ownership" rule. It has been replaced by "Use a single namespace (except special cases)".
Some additional changes have been performed, such as removal of some sections about "opportunity" or "promote migrations". I also added a "Rationale" section where I pointed out some issues related to naming.
The PEP has been marked as "deferred" because it was inactive and it is
partly related to PEP 426. I left this deferred state.
I am aware that some links in the PEP are broken... I will fix them later. My very first motivation is to get feedback about the "big" changes in the PEP. I wanted the update to be sent before EuroPython-2013's open-space session. I guess a detailed review would be nice anyway, for links, style, grammar...
Also, I wonder whether the PEP could be shortened or not. Sometimes I cannot find straightforward words to explain things, so perhaps someone
with better skills in english language could help. Or maybe some parts,
such as the "How to rename a project" section, could be moved in other documents.
Regards,
Benoît
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/markus%40unterwaditzer.net