RetroSearch Browse

Wed Dec 17 23:10:27 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-December/137624.html

On Dec 18, 2014, at 06:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

>However, I'd be happier if we could communicate that status more
>explicitly through the PEP process, especially as I think such a
>capability would be useful more generally as we move towards
>implementing metadata 2.0 and potentially other enhancements for pip
>7+ next year.
>
>If folks are OK with this idea, I'll go ahead and make the appropriate
>changes to PEP 1 and the PEP index generator. I'm also happy to file a
>tracker issue, or write a short PEP, if folks feel making such a
>change requires a little more formality in its own right.

Hi Nick.  What specific changes do you propose to PEP 1 and/or the PEP
process?   FWIW, if they are fairly simple, then I think a tracker issue with
at least the PEP 1 authors nosied would be fine.

Cheers,
-Barry

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-December/137624.html below:

[Python-Dev] Proposal: Update PEP 1 to allow an explicit "Provisional" status for PEPs