Martin von Loewis wrote: > > I just found that PEP 1 is confusing in its instructions of how to > submit feedback on a PEP. In one place, it says > > # A better strategy is to encourage public feedback directly to the > # PEP author, who collects and integrates the comments back into the > # PEP. > > which suggest that proposed amendments to a PEP should be sent to the > author. Later, it says > > # Please use the SourceForge bug manager[6] if you want to report > # problems with PEPs, or better yet, the SourceForge patch manager[2] > # for submitting patches to PEPs. > > which suggest that proposed amendments should be sent as patches to > SF. Now, which of these procedures is preferred? Does the second mean > that every PEP author needs permission to modify the patch database? > Should every such patch be assigned to the PEP editor (i.e. Barry)? > > In case you wonder, the specific patch in question is #448841. Just to clarify this a bit: I told Bob (the contributor) to upload the patch to SF so that I don't lose track of it. I wasn't aware that there actually is a PEP patch guideline somewhere -- for me the SF patch manager simply helps managing patch reviews, so I thought it makes good sense to tell people to upload patches for my PEPs to SF too. I don't think we need to make it a requirement though -- other PEP authors may have different tracking methods. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4