[Python-Dev] Two small PEP ideas (original) (raw)

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue Apr 27 23:55:32 CEST 2010

Guido van Rossum wrote:

When PEP 3147 was accepted, I had a few folks ask that this be recorded in the PEP by including a link to the BDFL pronouncement email. I realized that there's no formal way to express this in a PEP, and many PEPs in fact don't record more than the fact that it was accepted. I'd like to propose officially adding an Accepted: header which should include a URL to the email or other web resource where the PEP is accepted. I've come as close as possible to this (without modifying the supporting scripts or PEP 1) in PEP 3147:

http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3147/ I'd be willing to update things if there are no objections. I'd rather not build a single point of failure into the process. Instead of insisting on BDFL pronouncement, the community should switch do something like "last call for objections." There should also be a timeline so that unproductive discussion can't be dragged on forever.

I believe the more important part of Barry's suggested change here is requiring a link to the archived message (usually from python-dev) where the PEP was accepted (be it directly by you as BDFL, or by consensus from a "sufficient" number of core developers). This will likely also help with reminding people to announce on python-dev when PEPs are accepted by consensus (or by you) somewhere like PyCon or a sprint.

I would not mandate that we go back and update all previous PEPs for either of these ideas. We'd adopt them moving forward and allow anyone who's motivated to backfill information opportunistically. SGTM.

+1 to both ideas from me, too.

Cheers, Nick.

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

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list