On Jun 23, 2021, at 03:21, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > PEP 588 has not been accepted, so it's not necessarily relevant to the > actual migration plan here, but I do think it's reasonable to ask for > some clarification. Either PEP 588 should be rejectected, noting that > the actual implementation plan is being maintained differently, or it > should be updated as an ongoing document as the planning process goes > ahead. I suspect the update on this particular open question might > well be "the problem was considered, and ultimately it was concluded > that requiring a github account was not a showstopper". That may not > please some people (I don't personally care) but that's fine - not > everything has to be unanimous, as long as the SC approves.
Mariatta is the author of PEP 588 and I’m the delegate. Given how old that PEP is and the fact that Ezio is managing the project elsewhere, I think rejection is appropriate. However if we do that I think the PEP should at least be updated with references to Ezio’s project, with some verbiage added as to why these changes are being made. What do you think, Mariatta? -Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GVQRMQQSJPYCOGBRJJ5ZFHFVGE5K5GDJ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
