RetroSearch Browse

Fri Oct 19 13:33:50 CEST 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-October/122235.html

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org> wrote:
> FWIW I don't think those peps should be rejected simply because I didn't
> follow either for the 3.4 release schedule.  I think they should both have
> their day in the court of public opinion.  (Of course, maybe that day has
> already passed.)

Martin wanted to mark them rejected a while ago - reaction was
decidedly mixed, and the burden of proof to justify the extra workload
and complexity certainly wasn't met. I asked him to hold off because I
was planning to update 413 to the simple "early alphas" idea, but:
1. That's up to the RM rather than really needing a PEP
2. Even if it was a PEP level suggestion, a new PEP would be better
for a new idea anyway

At the moment, with the "3.4" used throughout the examples in both
PEPs, it's a little confusing w.r.t the actual 3.4 release PEP. I
could live with "Deferred" instead of "Rejected", but one or the other
should happen.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-October/122235.html below:

[Python-Dev] Rejecting PEPs 407 and 413?