[Python-Dev] PEP acceptance and SIGs

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>
> I don’t see any requirement to post PEPs to python-dev if they have a
Discussions-To header in PEP 1.


When I faced a similar situation with PEP 495, Guido's advise was "I think
that a courtesy message to python-dev is appropriate, with a link to the
PEP and an invitation to discuss its merits on datetime-sig." [1]

Maybe it is time to clarify that in PEP 1.

> I don’t really think it makes sense in this case either tbh, PyPI, pip,
and setuptools are not under python-dev’s banner.

Given that ensurepip is part of stdlib, I am not sure this is an accurate
statement.  Even if it was, did you make any effort to discuss the proposal
outside of a small group subscribed to distutils ML?

My main issue with PEP 470 is that it came shortly after PEP 438 and
replaced it.   PEP 438 created a solution that was not very convenient, but
possible to implement.  With PEP 470, you are punishing the developers who
took your advise and created verified external distribution assuming that
it would remain available for a foreseeable future.   By your own count,
[2] 59 projects implemented PEP 438 verification in two years since the PEP
was published.  You compare that to 931 that remain vulnerable and conclude
that the solution did not work.  Given that information about PEP 438
features was very thinly disseminated, I think 59 is a large number and it
would be appropriate to involve the developers of those packages in the
discussion that led to PEP 470.

[1]: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/datetime-sig/2015-August/000262.html
[2]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0470/#impact
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150930/4266eb43/attachment.html>