Re: [Python-Dev] Draft PEP: "Simplified Package Layout and Partitioning"
At 06:46 PM 7/20/2011 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
So, without further ado, here it is:
I pushed this version up to the PEPs repo, so it now has a number (402) and can be read in prettier HTML format: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0402/
Technically, shouldn't this be a 3XXX series PEP? Or are we not doing those any more now that all PEPs would be 3XXX?
On 07/20/2011 08:57 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 06:46 PM 7/20/2011 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
So, without further ado, here it is:
I pushed this version up to the PEPs repo, so it now has a number (402) and can be read in prettier HTML format: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0402/
Technically, shouldn't this be a 3XXX series PEP? Or are we not doing those any more now that all PEPs would be 3XXX?
I think we're back to normal PEP numbering. PEP 382 was also 3.x only. Eric.
First off, kudos to PJE for his work on this PEP. He really had the key insight for this new approach, and did a great job of explaining his vision in a clear way so that I think everybody over on import-sig "got it". On Jul 20, 2011, at 08:57 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 06:46 PM 7/20/2011 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
So, without further ado, here it is:
I pushed this version up to the PEPs repo, so it now has a number (402) and can be read in prettier HTML format: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0402/
Technically, shouldn't this be a 3XXX series PEP? Or are we not doing those any more now that all PEPs would be 3XXX?
Great question. I don't know if we want/need to make the distinction any more. It does feel a little odd putting Python 3 PEPs (the only kind of new Standards Track PEPs) in the 0XXX numbers, but now that we're all moving to Python 3 <wink>, it seems like segregating new PEPs to the 3XXX range is a bit contrived. I think filling up 0XXX is probably fine. -Barry
participants (3)
-
Barry Warsaw -
Eric V. Smith -
P.J. Eby