On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:29 AM Brett Cannon
Sebastian Kreft wrote:
Is something going to change wrt accepting new stubs in TypeShed (see https://github.com/python/typeshed/issues/2440) and requiring approval from package owners (
https://github.com/python/typeshed/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#the-contribut. ..
).
This is actually the biggest driver of people asking me about a DefinitelyTyped equivalent for Python since approval from the project receiving the type hints is not required on DefinitelyTyped which some around here believe has allowed it to flourish while being a detriment to contributions to typeshed (whether that worry is founded or not).
Then why didn't you say so? :-) That rule was proposed as a compromise to make package authors less worried about type annotations they weren't ready for. AFAIK we've never had a case where a package refused to allow stubs to be added to typeshed. And type annotations are much more accepted now than when PEP 484 and typeshed were first introduced. So maybe we can just drop this requirement? I believe we could ask the Steering Council to rule on this. It would require a PEP change, since PEP 484 has this on the topic: The Typeshed Repo ----------------- There is a shared repository where useful stubs are being collected [typeshed]_. Note that stubs for a given package will not be included here without the explicit consent of the package owner. Further policies regarding the stubs collected here will be decided at a later time, after discussion on python-dev, and reported in the typeshed repo's README. We could just propose to scratch the sentence "Note that stubs for a given package will not be included here without the explicit consent of the package owner." -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-c...