[Python-Dev] PEP 1 update

Samuele Pedroni pedroni@inf.ethz.ch
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:22:40 +0100

[Ahz Maruch]
> After looking at several PEPs over the last couple of days, I suggest
> that PEP 1 be updated to require inclusion of the Last-Modified:
> field.  At the very least, I suggest that Post-History: be checked more
> rigorously.  (PEP 263 contains a Post-History: field, but it is blank.)
> I don't think it's necessary to retrofit every PEP, but I think that
> every PEP up for consideration should be required to comply.
> -- 

>From some post son comp.lang.python it seems
that people has some problem keeping track
of PEPs and understand their status /iter:

- whether they are there hanging around
 from version to version for possible consideration
 until the BDFL pick them up
- whether they are open to changes or just pending
  and pushed for approval  (there is only the draft/final
- wondering whether some things under consideration
  are just oddballs hanging around for long spans of time 
  and why they are not rapidly rejected or improbably accepted.

I know what the PEP 1 says but anyway the PEP
summary and PEP headers don't seem 
to properly and completely 
capture the right information needed
to make sense for a casual reader.

Another problem is that there are PEPs
that have multiple phases but are marked
has finished just because the main changes are
implemented (division changes)

and PEPs with important changes already done 
that are reported somehow just as unimplemented .

Even Alex Martelli was  wondering what was
happing e.g. with PEP 246 (I think it has solved
that at IPC10).

Just my impressions.

regards, Samuele Pedroni.