[Python-Dev] PEP 3145 (With Contents)
brett at python.org
Fri Dec 21 15:46:55 CET 2012
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Chris Jerdonek <
> chris.jerdonek at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org>
> >> >
> >> > And please do not CC the peps mailing list on discussions. It should
> >> > only be
> >> > used to mail in new PEPs or acceptable patches to PEPs.
> >> PEP 1 should perhaps be clarified if the above is the case.
> >> Currently, PEP 1 says all PEP-related e-mail should be sent there:
> >> "The PEP editors assign PEP numbers and change their status. Please
> >> send all PEP-related email to <peps at python.org> (no cross-posting
> >> please). Also see PEP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow below."
> >> as well as:
> >> "A PEP editor must subscribe to the <peps at python.org> list. All
> >> PEP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to
> >> <peps at python.org> (but please do not cross-post!)."
> >> (Incidentally, the statement not to cross-post seems contradictory if
> >> a PEP-related e-mail is also sent to python-dev, for example.)
> > But it very clearly states to NOT cross-post which is exactly what
> > did and that is what I take issue with the most. I personally don't see
> > confusion with the wording. It clearly states that if you are a PEP
> > you should mail the peps editors and NOT cross-post. If you are an
> > make sure any emailing you do with an individual CCs the list but do NOT
> > cross-post.
> I don't disagree that he shouldn't have cross-posted. I was just
> pointing out that the language should be clarified. What's confusing
> is that the current language implies that one shouldn't send any
> PEP-related e-mails to any mailing list other than peps at . In
> particular, how can one discuss PEPs on python-dev or python-ideas
> without violating that language (e.g. this e-mail which is related to
> PEP 1)? It is probably just a matter of clarifying what "PEP-related"
I'm just not seeing the confusion, sorry. And we have never really had any
confusion over this wording before. If you want to send a patch to tweak
the wording to me more clear then please go ahead and I will consider it,
but I'm not worried enough about it to try to come up with some rewording
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev