[Python-Dev] PEP 411 - request for pronouncement

[Guido van Rossum]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote:
> PEP 411 -- Provisional packages in the Python standard library
>
> Has been updated with all accumulated feedback from list discussions.
> Here it is: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0411/ (the text is also
> pasted in the bottom of this email).
>
> The PEP received mostly positive feedback. The only undecided point is
> where to specify that the package is provisional. Currently the PEP
> mandates to specify it in the documentation and in the docstring.
> Other suggestions were to put it in the code, either as a
> __provisional__ attribute on the module, or collect all such modules
> in a single sys.provisional list.
>
> According to http://blog.python.org/2012/03/2012-language-summit-report.html,
> the PEP was discussed in the language summit and overall viewed
> positively, although no final decision has been reached.
>
> ISTM a decision needs to be taken, which is why I request
> pronouncement, with a recommendation on the requirement the PEP should
> make of provisional modules (process details).

I think the PEP is almost ready for approval. Congratulations! A few comments:

- I'd leave some wiggle room for the docs owner (Georg) about the
exact formulation of the text blurb included for provisional modules
and the glossary entry; I don't want the PEP to have the last word
here.

- I think we are settling on the term "feature release" instead of the
somewhat ambiguous "minor release".

- As was discussed at the language summit, I'd like to emphasize that
the bar for making changes to a provisional package should be
considered pretty high. That is, while we don't make guarantees about
backward compatibility, we still expect that most of the API of most
provisional packages will be unchanged at graduation. Withdrawals
should also be pretty rare.

- Should we limit the duration of the provisional state to 1 or 2
feature releases?

- I'm not sure what to do with regex -- it may be better to just
include in as "re" and keep the old re module around under another
name ("sre" has been proposed half jokingly).

PS. Please use the version in the peps repo as the starting point of
future edits.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)