[I think my other response got dropped, so apologies for any duplicates] Guido van Rossum wrote: > I wonder if it would make sense to require that for each PEP a new GitHub > *repo* be created whose contents would just be a draft PEP and whose issue > tracker and PR manager would be used to debate the PEP and propose specific > changes.
I don't think I'd want to see tons of new PEP repos under the current `python` organization. Maybe we should create a new organization for this experiment? Also, since non-core devs can and do create PEPs, the permission management will be different than the normal repos. Clearly the PEP authors should be owners of the individual repos, but they should probably also decide how merges happen, and who else can contribute to their repo. It also means that PEP editors probably have an additional responsibility to create the PEP repo. PEP 1's Discussions-To header can probably be co-opted for the URL to the GH repo. Right now, that field is described as an email address, but it would be appropriate IMHO to also allow a URL for discussions. > Thoughts? (We can dogfood this proposal too, if there's interest. :-) I don't know whether this will help focus rambling PEP discussions. I personally don't love the linearity of GH comments. Threading is useful! OTOH, it seems like a low-cost experiment to try so if there's a volunteer who wants to be the guinea pig, I'm fine with it. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
