Barry Warsaw and I, the PEP editors, have been discussing the need for a new PEP type lately. Martin von Löwis' PEP 347 was a prime example of a PEP that didn't fit into the existing Standards Track and Informational categories. We agreed upon a new "Process" PEP type. For more information, please see PEP 1 (http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html) -- the type of which has also been changed to Process. Other good examples of Process PEPs are the release schedule PEPs, and I understand there may be a new one soon. (Please cc: any PEP-related mail to peps@python.org) -- David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005, David Goodger wrote:
Barry Warsaw and I, the PEP editors, have been discussing the need for a new PEP type lately. Martin von L?wis' PEP 347 was a prime example of a PEP that didn't fit into the existing Standards Track and Informational categories. We agreed upon a new "Process" PEP type. For more information, please see PEP 1 (http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html) -- the type of which has also been changed to Process.
Go ahead and make PEP 6 a Process PEP. -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ The way to build large Python applications is to componentize and loosely-couple the hell out of everything.
participants (2)
-
Aahz
-
David Goodger