On 14 November 2017 at 10:27, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 15:55 Steven D'Aprano, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 06:37:05PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
And possibly the easiest way to reach them is on the pyqa-dev mailing
What's that? I can't find it on python.org, Gmane, or the Googles.
Brett may have meant
Steve's right. http://meta.pycqa.org/en/latest/
I think that will be the right way to go about it, as this seems similar to a lot of the problems that arise in the packaging interoperability space: what really matters is what tool developers support in practice, so documenting a proposed convention without a clear implementation plan across common tools wouldn't really achieve a great deal.
This means that any new convention ideas need to be discussed and supported by the tool developers, with python-dev & python-ideas really only getting involved if some standard library adjustments are needed (e.g. updating doctest to abide by any proposed conventions), or if the convention is going to be captured as an informational PEP, rather than solely as a recommended comment parsing library.