[Phillip J. Eby]
>>> I was going over the PEP index this morning, and I noticed a large
>>> number of PEPs listed under the "open" list that would seem to me
>>> to be "accepted", if not "done" in some cases, according to the
>>> criteria described by the headings. (Specifically, PEPs 218, 237,
>>> 273, 282, 283, 301, 302, 305, and 307.)
Wearing my PEP Editor hat, I recently performed a similar exercise. I
even got Guido's OK on suggested changes to Final and Approved on
those specific PEPs (all but 305, which I'd missed).
On further reflection however, I'm not sure that we should go forward
without at least giving the authors notice, and a chance to make
changes (especially, changes that bring PEPs in line with current
reality). PEP 1 states:
Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP
editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL
and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send
it back to the author(s) for revision.
Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be
completed. When the reference implementation is complete and
accepted by the BDFL, the status will be changed to "Final".
It's unclear whether the BDFL should even be able to review a PEP
without the author's review request (I'm pretty sure everyone would
agree that it's OK, but it's not clear from the wording). So as not
to upset PEP authors unnecessarily ;-), I think we ought to follow the
formal process. It's not too onerous; a simple note (stating "PEP X
is ready for review") to <peps@python.org> would be sufficient:
I'll send out reminders.
> It's not a big deal, but it's very hard to see from the list which
> things are "in progress", "need revisions", or are "unlikely to make
> it". So since I already took the trouble to work out the answers for
> myself, I thought I'd offer to help the next person who came along.
> :)
Everyone needs a good kick in the pants once in a while, thanks.
>>> Others under "open" I would guess are in fact "rejected", notably
>>> 294 (the patch was closed rejected)
[Guido]
>> Correct -- this *issue* is still open, but the solution from the
>> PEP is rejected.
So is PEP 294 itself rejected? Or should we await a formal review
request (as per the above)?
[Phillip]
>>> Should I submit a patch for PEP 0?
Don't bother; I'll update it as required.
--
David Goodger <http://starship.python.net/~goodger>
Python Enhancement Proposal (PEP) Editor <http://www.python.org/peps/>
(Please cc: all PEP correspondence to <peps@python.org>.)