Are these PEP complete?: 389, 391, 3108, 3135
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eac55/eac5591fe952105aa6b0a522d87a8e612b813b5f" alt=""
As the subject line asks, is there anything preventing the following PEPs from being marked Final? SA 389 argparse - New Command Line Parsing Module Bethard SA 391 Dictionary-Based Configuration For Logging Sajip SA 3108 Standard Library Reorganization Cannon SA 3121 Extension Module Initialization and Finalization von Löwis SA 3135 New Super Spealman, Delaney, Ryan (I deliberately left 3118 off the list, since there are some discrepancies between the PEP and the implementation that need to be clarified for 3.3 and the 3 distutils related PEPs won't be done until Tarek merges distutils2 back into the main line of development) It would be good to clear the decks before new PEPs start to be accepted for inclusion in 3.3. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3c3b2/3c3b2a6eec514cc32680936fa4e74059574d2631" alt=""
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Somebody (not me, not necessarily the same person for each PEP) needs to check each of these PEPs for how well they match the implemented reality and report back here. (Unless you already did this and are basically giving them a certificate of correctness with your post?)
Why? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eac55/eac5591fe952105aa6b0a522d87a8e612b813b5f" alt=""
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
I did have a look and those listed are the ones that seemed to be finished. Before moving them to Final, I figured I would ask for additional opinions in case I had missed something and they still had some elements that needed to be implemented for 3.3. As it turns out, I had missed the incomplete profile/cProfile merge for PEP 3108.
It's mainly just a continuation of the PEP 0 cleanup I started a while back, trying to make it clearer which major items are still on the to-do list for 3.3 and which were completed for 3.2. I have an associated PEP 1 update I'd like to propose as well (giving the API/metadata standardisation PEPs a dedicated "Consensus" state to better separate them from Accepted language and standard library feature PEPs), but I need to actually write it first. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e87f3/e87f3c7c6d92519a9dac18ec14406dd41e3da93d" alt=""
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 04:52, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
PEP 3108 (http://bugs.python.org/issue2775) will be considered done once cProfile and profile are merged. -Brett
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5e9b8/5e9b8d7aaabd5b1c2a188683650ae44c62689872" alt=""
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for taking forever to get back to this. So I looked over PEP 389 and it's basically complete, but I never implemented the code deprecation warnings for optparse (only the documentation deprecation warnings). The PEP claims: Python 2.7+ -- If the Python 3 compatibility flag, -3, is provided at the command line, then importing optparse will issue a DeprecationWarning. Otherwise no warnings will be issued. Python 3.2+ -- Importing optparse will issue a PendingDeprecationWarning, which is not displayed by default. I'm kind of inclined to just remove those lines from the PEP since optparse is not being removed and since 2.7 and 3.2 are already out the door. If anyone thinks those deprecation warnings really need to be implemented, let me know in the next couple days. Otherwise, I'll update the PEP and mark it as final. Steve -- Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis? Did Steve tell you that? --- The Hiphopopotamus
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eac55/eac5591fe952105aa6b0a522d87a8e612b813b5f" alt=""
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com> wrote:
My recollection is that omitting the deprecation warnings was a deliberate decision during the implementation phase, so updating the PEP with a note to that effect and then marking it as final sounds like the right thing to do. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3c3b2/3c3b2a6eec514cc32680936fa4e74059574d2631" alt=""
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Somebody (not me, not necessarily the same person for each PEP) needs to check each of these PEPs for how well they match the implemented reality and report back here. (Unless you already did this and are basically giving them a certificate of correctness with your post?)
Why? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eac55/eac5591fe952105aa6b0a522d87a8e612b813b5f" alt=""
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
I did have a look and those listed are the ones that seemed to be finished. Before moving them to Final, I figured I would ask for additional opinions in case I had missed something and they still had some elements that needed to be implemented for 3.3. As it turns out, I had missed the incomplete profile/cProfile merge for PEP 3108.
It's mainly just a continuation of the PEP 0 cleanup I started a while back, trying to make it clearer which major items are still on the to-do list for 3.3 and which were completed for 3.2. I have an associated PEP 1 update I'd like to propose as well (giving the API/metadata standardisation PEPs a dedicated "Consensus" state to better separate them from Accepted language and standard library feature PEPs), but I need to actually write it first. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e87f3/e87f3c7c6d92519a9dac18ec14406dd41e3da93d" alt=""
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 04:52, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
PEP 3108 (http://bugs.python.org/issue2775) will be considered done once cProfile and profile are merged. -Brett
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5e9b8/5e9b8d7aaabd5b1c2a188683650ae44c62689872" alt=""
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for taking forever to get back to this. So I looked over PEP 389 and it's basically complete, but I never implemented the code deprecation warnings for optparse (only the documentation deprecation warnings). The PEP claims: Python 2.7+ -- If the Python 3 compatibility flag, -3, is provided at the command line, then importing optparse will issue a DeprecationWarning. Otherwise no warnings will be issued. Python 3.2+ -- Importing optparse will issue a PendingDeprecationWarning, which is not displayed by default. I'm kind of inclined to just remove those lines from the PEP since optparse is not being removed and since 2.7 and 3.2 are already out the door. If anyone thinks those deprecation warnings really need to be implemented, let me know in the next couple days. Otherwise, I'll update the PEP and mark it as final. Steve -- Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis? Did Steve tell you that? --- The Hiphopopotamus
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eac55/eac5591fe952105aa6b0a522d87a8e612b813b5f" alt=""
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com> wrote:
My recollection is that omitting the deprecation warnings was a deliberate decision during the implementation phase, so updating the PEP with a note to that effect and then marking it as final sounds like the right thing to do. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
participants (4)
-
Brett Cannon
-
Guido van Rossum
-
Nick Coghlan
-
Steven Bethard