On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Todd Rovito firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Nick Coghlan email@example.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Terry Reedy firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
[snip reasons] OK, I am convinced an info PEP would be a good idea.
Unless anyone objects, I'm happy to be BDFL-delegate for such a PEP. I mainly want to ensure we clearly fence off "IDLE-the-application", with (in effect) a 6 month release cycle synchronised across versions, from the rest of the standard library.
I have not seen much progress on this issue so I thought I would attempt to draft a PEP. This is my first PEP so go easy on me.
Attached is a PEP titled "IDLE Enhancement Exception for All Branches", I am looking for feedback. Thanks.
That's a good start - please forward it to the PEP editors list (email@example.com) to be posted.
The rationale needs to be fleshed out a bit more along the lines of "IDLE is primarily used as an application that ships with Python, rather than as a library module used to build Python applications, that's why it is OK for a different standard to apply". Mentioning the point about Linux distros splitting it out into a separate package would also be useful.
NY other two major comments: - be specific about which parts of the code base are covered by the exception - no need for extensive cross-OS testing prior to commit, that's a key part of the role of the buildbots