On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:19 PM Chris Angelico firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
PEPs don't get updated as future requirements cause changes in the language. They remain as they were: the proposal. Changing the name because of a change in the PEP's metadata seems like a very backwards way to do things; among other things, it would lead people to consider "PAPs" to be somehow authorative while "PEPs" are not, which would leave informational and process PEPs in an awkward situation of being neither non-accepted nor accepted,
I referred PEP8, a meta-pep as PAP8 in the first mail itself and should have been one of the first tripping lines of the discussion. If such PEPs are included under PAPs, the 'authorative' point holds as it should be
Additionally, changing the *name* of a document means that every reference has to be changed,
I guess you mean on the website itself. It's a nice point which i was expecting. As with any change, some changes are expected and if i am not mistaken, the source is some text documents and updating them means running a script over them locally.
The only advantage you've offered is some relatively weak notion that it ceases to be a proposal once it's accepted, and since "PAP" would still have the word "Proposal" in it, you're not really even changing that.
All law projects remain law projects. But we
call law projects which has been accepted as law.
Let's not waste everyone's time for zero benefit. Thanks.
ChrisA PEP editor who really doesn't feel like trying to support two names for the same things
If we change even past accepted PEPs it's one name for one thing. The thread dying off is in itself a sign that the idea is weak and does not hold much value. But if someone brings a point that would re-start the discussion i think it's better to notify him. I'm good if the thread dies off without any further input than rebringing what has already been told.