On September 4, 2015 at 10:12:08 PM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 3 September 2015 at 09:45, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On September 1, 2015 at 9:57:50 AM, Daniel Holth (dho...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Looks amazing, why don't we merge it. > >> > > > > I think we need to update the PEP or write a new PEP before we add new tags > > to the implementation. > > Right, we're mainly talking about replacing/updating the compatibility > tags in PEP 425. The most expedient way to formalise consensus on that > would be to just write a replacement PEP and have it take precedence > over 425 even for current generation wheel files. > > More generally, this an area where I don't think the PEP process is > actually working well for us - I think we'd be better off separating > the "produced artifact" (i.e. versioned interoperability > specifications) from the change management process for those > specifications (i.e. the PEP process). That's the way CPython works, > after all - the released artifacts are the reference interpreter, the > language reference, and the standard library reference, while the PEP > process is a way of negotiating major changes to those. PyPI is > similar - pypi.python.org and its APIs are the released artifact, the > PEPs negotiate changes. > > It's only the interoperability specs where we currently follow the RFC > model of having the same document describe both the end result *and* > the rationale for changes from the previous version, and I mostly find > it to be a pain. >
I'm not sure that I follow what you’re saying here, can you describe what your ideal situation would look like? ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
