Re: [Python-checkins] CVS: python/nondist/peps pep-0204.txt,1.4,1.5
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:37:39PM -0800, Thomas Wouters wrote:
In addition to that, PEP 0 also needs to be updated. Shall I do that myself, now that Barry is apparently away ? While I was at it, I also noticed PEP 0200 still says 'Incomplete', though that might be by design. Yay-another-first-for-me---first-rejected-PEP-ly y'rs, ;) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
"TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:
>> Update this PEP to current, harsh, reality. It's been rejected >> :) If at all possible, the reasoning should be extended to >> include the real reasons it was rejected -- this is just >> guesswork from my side. (This means you, Guido, or anyone who >> can channel Guido enough to call himself Guido.) TW> In addition to that, PEP 0 also needs to be updated. Shall I TW> do that myself, now that Barry is apparently away ? I've just done it. TW> While I was at it, I also noticed PEP 0200 still says TW> 'Incomplete', though that might be by design. I've updated both these too, thanks. -Barry
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
Shouldn't we allow other people to tweak PEP 0? It would certainly lighten Barry's administrative overload. I mean, geez... this is what source control is about. Let a lot of people in there, but be able to back up in case somebody totally goofs it. This goes for adding new PEPs, too. I'm not as convinced here, since some level of "good enough for a PEP" filtering is probably desirable, but then again, it would seem that the people with commit access probably have that filter in their head anyways. Just a thought... how can we grease things up a bit more... Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Agreed.
Here, common sense and good judgement should be applied. If there seems to be consensus that a PEP is needed, there's no need to wait for Barry. The update to PEP-0000 commits the assignment of the new PEP number. But the new PEP should follow all the rules for a new PEP! Having Barry in the loop makes sense for those who aren't sure they can comply with all the rules, and for those outside the python-dev community. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
"GS" == Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
GS> Shouldn't we allow other people to tweak PEP 0? It would GS> certainly lighten Barry's administrative overload. I certainly don't mind at the very least, people modifying PEP 0 when the status of their own peps change. GS> I mean, geez... this is what source control is about. Let a GS> lot of people in there, but be able to back up in case GS> somebody totally goofs it. GS> This goes for adding new PEPs, too. I'm not as convinced here, GS> since some level of "good enough for a PEP" filtering is GS> probably desirable, but then again, it would seem that the GS> people with commit access probably have that filter in their GS> head anyways. GS> Just a thought... how can we grease things up a bit more... I do like to make a sanity pass through the text before approving it, just to make sure we've got consistent format throughout the peps. Also, I know we're all on "internet time" here <wink>, but one day isn't too much time to let pass before taking action on things. :) I'd also prefer it if there's /some/ limited editorial review before these things get added. That having been said, I'm very happy if someone wants to co-edit the peps. The pep 0 re-organization and slacker scolding would definitely benefit from more than one watchdog. Volunteers? :) -Barry
"TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:
>> Update this PEP to current, harsh, reality. It's been rejected >> :) If at all possible, the reasoning should be extended to >> include the real reasons it was rejected -- this is just >> guesswork from my side. (This means you, Guido, or anyone who >> can channel Guido enough to call himself Guido.) TW> In addition to that, PEP 0 also needs to be updated. Shall I TW> do that myself, now that Barry is apparently away ? I've just done it. TW> While I was at it, I also noticed PEP 0200 still says TW> 'Incomplete', though that might be by design. I've updated both these too, thanks. -Barry
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
Shouldn't we allow other people to tweak PEP 0? It would certainly lighten Barry's administrative overload. I mean, geez... this is what source control is about. Let a lot of people in there, but be able to back up in case somebody totally goofs it. This goes for adding new PEPs, too. I'm not as convinced here, since some level of "good enough for a PEP" filtering is probably desirable, but then again, it would seem that the people with commit access probably have that filter in their head anyways. Just a thought... how can we grease things up a bit more... Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Agreed.
Here, common sense and good judgement should be applied. If there seems to be consensus that a PEP is needed, there's no need to wait for Barry. The update to PEP-0000 commits the assignment of the new PEP number. But the new PEP should follow all the rules for a new PEP! Having Barry in the loop makes sense for those who aren't sure they can comply with all the rules, and for those outside the python-dev community. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
"GS" == Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
GS> Shouldn't we allow other people to tweak PEP 0? It would GS> certainly lighten Barry's administrative overload. I certainly don't mind at the very least, people modifying PEP 0 when the status of their own peps change. GS> I mean, geez... this is what source control is about. Let a GS> lot of people in there, but be able to back up in case GS> somebody totally goofs it. GS> This goes for adding new PEPs, too. I'm not as convinced here, GS> since some level of "good enough for a PEP" filtering is GS> probably desirable, but then again, it would seem that the GS> people with commit access probably have that filter in their GS> head anyways. GS> Just a thought... how can we grease things up a bit more... I do like to make a sanity pass through the text before approving it, just to make sure we've got consistent format throughout the peps. Also, I know we're all on "internet time" here <wink>, but one day isn't too much time to let pass before taking action on things. :) I'd also prefer it if there's /some/ limited editorial review before these things get added. That having been said, I'm very happy if someone wants to co-edit the peps. The pep 0 re-organization and slacker scolding would definitely benefit from more than one watchdog. Volunteers? :) -Barry
participants (4)
-
barry＠wooz.org -
Greg Stein -
Guido van Rossum -
Thomas Wouters