[Python-Dev] PEP 1 update

Samuele Pedroni pedroni@inf.ethz.ch
Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:21:29 +0100

From: Martin v. Loewis <martin@v.loewis.de>
> "Samuele Pedroni" <pedroni@inf.ethz.ch> writes:
> > Just my impressions.
> I agree with the observations, but what would you do about this?

Some possible proposals (more or less easy to implement)

>From PEP 1:
    Standards track PEPs must have a Python-Version: header which
    indicates the version of Python that the feature will be released
    with.  Informational PEPs do not need a Python-Version: header.

- have in the summary an active (standard track) PEP category:
e.g.  PEP 237, PEP 252, PEP 253,  PEP 238 should go there;
maybe use for them the Python-Version (possibly renamed
 Implementation-Python-Versions: ) in a reasonable imaginative
   PEP 237: 2.2-2.3-2.4,...3.0
   PEP 238:  2.2...3.0
   PEP 252: 2.2....

- PEP for which it is not clear whether they will be implemeted
  should have Python-Version: ?,
  I think that for example PEPs 273 and 277 are fine reporting
  Python-Version: 2.3

- Maybe open PEPs should be divided between those
  that have at least a proof-of-concept or ref impl,
  and those that don't have one (the latter for obvious
 reasons are less likely to be implemented).
 Maybe other/richer categorizations would sense
 but those would require more burocracy.

- Maybe status should go a bit beyond the actual
  draft/final dicotomy    but this needs  discussion
  (thinking out loud: draft -> draft-stable vs. draft-incomplete
    or open-draft)

  OTOH the above proposals should already
  improve things a bit (if they are practicable).

- PEP workflow:
  at the moment it seems that a PEP champion
  can ask the BDFL to accept/reject and then
  things should reach "quickly" a final settlement.

  (Are all the PEPpers aware of this, sometimes
    it seems not for some of the PEP hanging around)

 Now if this would happen for all the PEPs
 on the plate, Guido would have an hard time :-)

  I think is up to Guido to think/decide/change
  things in this respect.

(For sure I miss the pie-in-the-sky category,
maybe Guido should sometimes go over
all the PEPs and assign acceptance likelyhood
measures,  half-kidding <wink>.

Just some vague ideas.

regards, Samuele Pedroni.