[Python-Dev] Workflow PEP proposals are now closed

[Antoine Pitrou]

Hi,

What does "closed" mean in this context?

Regards

Antoine.



On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:35:47 +0000
Brett Cannon <bcannon at gmail.com> wrote:
> The PEPs under consideration are PEPs 474
> <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0474/> and 462
> <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0462/> from Nick Coghlan to use
> Kallithea and do self-hosting, and PEP 481
> <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0481/> from Donald Stufft that
> proposes using GitHub.
> 
> At this point I expect final PEPs by PyCon US so I can try and make a
> decision by May 1. Longer still is to hopefully have whatever solution we
> choose in place right after Python 3.5 is released.
> 
> And just a reminder to people, the lofty goal is to improve the overall
> workflow for CPython itself such that our patch submission queue can
> actually be cleared regularly. This not only benefits core devs by letting
> us be more effective, but also contributors by making sure their hard work
> gets addressed quickly and thus doesn't languish on the issue tracker for
> very long.
> 
> If we can't find a solution for fixing our CPython workflow I will then be
> willing to entertain these PEPs narrowing their scopes and only focus on
> ancillary repos like the devguide, etc. where the workflows are simple.
> 
> I know the absolute worst case is nothing changes, but honestly I think the
> worst case is Nick's work gets us off of Rietveld, the ancillary repos move
> to GitHub, and we make the GitHub and Bitbucket mirrors of CPython official
> ones for people to work from (bonus points if we get the issue tracker to
> have push button patch pulling from GitHub; Bitbucket is already covered
> thanks to our remote hg repo support). IOW I see nothing but a win for
> contributors and core devs as well as everyone proposing solutions which is
> a nice place to start from. =)
>