On 11/30/2014 1:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I don't feel it's my job to accept or reject this PEP, but I do have an > opinion. ... > - I am basically the only remaining active PEP editor, so I see most PEP > contributions by non-core-committers. Almost all of these uses github. > Not bitbucket, not some other git host, but github. I spend a fair > amount of time applying patches. It would most definitely be easier if I > could get them to send me pull requests. The scope of the PEP is still apparently somewhat fluid. I said elsewhere that I think the principal maintainers of a specialized single-branch repository should have the principal say in where it lives. So I think you should be the one to decide on a PEP limited to moving the PEP repository. My understanding is that if the peps were moved to github, then I would be able to suggest changes via an online web form that would generate a pull request from edited text. If so, I would say go ahead and move them and see how it goes. To me, the multibranch CPython repository is a very different issue. I think it should stay where it is for now, especially with 2.7 support extended. I think for this we should better focus on better use of developer time and getting more developers active. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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